Samizdata

The BBC reports on the latest application of RFID technology: London Undergound’s new “Oyster” cards.

These are smart cards that will replace existing season tickets. The advantage is that they don’t even have to be swiped through a gate and will hopefully speed passenger flow through the stations.

The disadvantage is that they will be personalised to you and will – surprise, surprise – record full details of every journey you make on a central database. This information will be retained for “a number of years”.

Even more worrying, there have been suggestions that the people responsible for these cards are keen to extend them to “other applications”.

An anonymous card will be available, but will cost more. An estimated £200 pa for an average commuter.

So the question for London commuters is: Are you willing to sell your privacy for 200 quid?

Cross-posted from The Chestnut Tree Cafe

It’s one thing to promise not to pass on data to other organisations, and it’s another thing again not to pass on data to other organisations:

JetBlue Airways passengers, more than a million of them, have been unsuspecting guinea pigs in a Defense Department contractor’s experiment in mining commercial databases to assess the risk of a person turning out to be a terrorist. The airline admits it violated its own privacy policy when it acceded to the Pentagon’s request to give passenger records to Torch Concepts, a private technology business that was ostensibly creating a program to enhance security at military bases.

That’s paragraph one of a New York Times story today. This is the final para:

This misstep only feeds legitimate consumer fears that companies and governments are too quick to use private data in unauthorized ways. It is worrisome, in this regard, that the Homeland Security Department has already backtracked from its original vow to use its passenger-profiling program only to fight terrorism. There is now talk of turning it into an all-purpose law-enforcement tool. For its part, in addition to ascertaining what actually took place, Congress may also need to consider new legal protections for consumers’ privacy.

Mission creep, in other words.

Reuters reports that Britain has become the second country in Europe to criminalise spam, that unwanted barrage of e-mail and mobile phone text messages that promise get-rich-quick schemes, cheap home loans and a better sex life.

The unsolicited messages, which industry groups say account for more than half of all e-mails sent, have become the scourge of Internet users everywhere. Under the new UK law, spammers face a 5,000 pound fine if convicted in a magistrates court. The fine from a jury trial would be unlimited. Spammers would not face prison, according to the new law, which was introduced by Communications Minister Stephen Timms.

The law does not however cover workplace e-mail addresses. Anti-spam proponents had been calling for a blanket law that would criminalise all forms of spam. Steve Linford, founder of anti-spam group Spamhaus Project says:

To say it is permissable to spam somebody at work but not at home could put an extremely large burden on British businesses. It says it’s okay to spam companies.

The biggest spammers are based in the United States and Asia. Strenuous anti-spam laws there are seen as key to shutting off the valve.

The Guardian reports that the charity commission will be given powers to use covert informants, track individuals and obtain email and telephone records under controversial legislation dubbed a “snooper’s charter” by civil liberties groups.

Orders laid before parliament last Friday will include the commission in the list of public bodies given powers under the Regulation of Investigative Powers Act 2000 (RIPA).

The orders will allow the commission to mount “directed surveillance operations” – monitoring people’s movements – use “covert human intelligence sources” – undercover agents and informers – and to obtain limited information about email, phone and postal communications, for the purpose of preventing and detecting crime.

Chris Stalker, head of campaigns at the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, said:

While NCVO welcome measures that will ensure greater trust, confidence and the integrity of charities, the use of RIPA by the charity commission does cause us some concern.

While the commission’s power to investigate is crucial to its work, we will be monitoring the use of this new legislation closely to ensure it remains proportionate to its role as regulator of the charitable sector.