Oct 082015
 October 8, 2015  Surveillance, U.S. No Responses »


Joe Cadillic is all over this one (some typos corrected by me):

According to an Arizona Dept. of Child Safety document, churches are working with social workers to spy on families and they’re also using “Child Safety and Risk Assessments“.

According to a Tuscon.com article, church leaders are openly encouraged to collaborate with the gov’t. The article goes on to explain how religious organizations will spy on families and help the gov’t decide whether they should remove a child from their family!

“Called The Care Portal, the online tool allows DCS caseworkers who know of a specific need of a child or family to submit that request via email to nearby churches enrolled in the system.”

Read more on MassPrivateI.

Oct 082015
 October 8, 2015  Non-U.S., Surveillance No Responses »

Zheping Huang reports:

During China’s National Day holidays this month, almost 8 million tourists visited Beijing in just four days—and the Chinese government kept a close watch on every one of them as they toured the capital’s streets.

Beijing police added new surveillance cameras ahead of the holiday, and have expand coverage in the city to “100 percent” for the first time ever, to “tighten the capital’s security” and “avoid crimes in crowds,” state-run China Daily reported.

Read more on Quartz.

Oct 082015
 October 8, 2015  Breaches No Responses »

Chris Mandle reports:

The photo agency responsible for the nude photos of Justin Bieber have denied claims the singer’s privacy was invaded as he stood on the decking of a remote holiday apartment.

Speaking to The Independent, a spokesman from FameFlynet UK said: “There’s no invasion of privacy” and would not comment on whether a long-lens was used to get the photos.

Bieber was photographed while on holiday in Bora Bora, walking from the inside of a seafront bungalow to the decking outside. Several photos show full-frontal nudity.

The pictures were published exclusively on New York Daily News, who covered Bieber’s crotch with a modesty bar, but the originals were leaked onto Twitter late last night and soon went viral.

Read more on The Independent.

If this would be an invasion of privacy for a female, it’s an invasion of privacy for Bieber.  If it’s an invasion of privacy for a private (non-public) figure, it’s an invasion of privacy for a public figure or celebrity. We need to stop with the double standards. This is not just a matter of tackiness. If you sit quietly by while this happens to Bieber, why should you expect that your own privacy should be respected or protected?