Yesterday, Sony made the announcement in a press release that “user account information was compromised in connection with an illegal and unauthorized intrusion into our network.” Sony went on to say that the company discovered the intrusion in conjunction with a major attack on their PlayStation Network and Qriocity sometime between April 17^th and April 19^th this year. The PSN and Qriocity networks remain offline for now as the investigation takes place.

The personal data of nearly 70 million users have been potentially compromised during this intrusion. Information that may have been taken includes credit card information, name and personal data, and address and contact details. It is hard to know exactly how much personal data will be maliciously used, but we will no doubt hear about it in the months to come. This news, though shocking, is coming as no surprise to all of us who have had to deal with other personal data compromises including most recently iTunes accounts.

What is different this time around is that the UK Information Commissioner Christopher Graham announced today that he is launching an investigation into the breach of personal data that involves British users. Graham said “We are contacting Sony and will be making further enquiries to establish the precise nature of the incident before deciding what action, if any, needs to be taken by this office.” That action could be a fine up to £500,000.

The full details of the data intrusion have yet to be fully disclosed; however it seems that the personal data was not encrypted in an appropriate way. Though Sony will have a lot to answer for including a decrease in trust from their customers, it is important to note that we as users can do a few things to protect ourselves. First, don’t reuse the same passwords across all of your personal accounts. We all do this, but try and diversify. Second, try and use a credit card or payment system for online accounts that is not directly related to personal bank details. Though this isn’t always practical, some kind of online only credit card is easier to monitor and cancel than a bank card with bank details. Third, think about the information that you are sending across when signing up for an account online or in a social environment. Again, we all have these accounts, but taking a moment to ensure greater personal security if at all possible does help to minimise the amount and type of information stolen.

Today's Daily Mail contains frankly rather bizzare story about new Post Office regulations banning postmen from crossing the roads of the super-metropolis of Goodworth Clatford in Hampshire for – you guessed it – health and safety reasons.  As a result of this step, introduced by Post Office bosses in order to "minimise risk", residents are now receiving their postal deliveries up to two hours late each day. 

Located on the periphery of the sleepy town of Andover, Goodworth Clatford's (population: <1000) roads are considerd so safe that parents are apparently happy for even young children to cross its roads without supervision. 

Whatever happened to common sense?  Goodworth Clatford isn't Piccadilly Circus.  Can postmen really not be trusted to cross the road?

Hat-tip: CM

Over at the Fox News blog, there's a very interesting article which suggests that many of the security measures being taken by the Police in advance of the Royal Wedding on Friday would be impossible to implement in the United States.

While the Police are likely to roll out many of their usual law enforcement tactics – random stop an searches, carefully monitored CCTV footage and beefed-up patrols – they have requested that a whole raft of hugely draconian restrictions are imposed in the Westminster area on the day of the wedding.  Among these measures is a temporary ban on an unnamed iPhone application in the vicinity of Buckingham Place and Westminster Abbey.  The Police will apparently be "monitoring use of the application on the wedding day and arrest anyone caught uploading unauthorized images". 

In the United States, such measures would simply not be possible as a result of regulations which ban Police from deploying overly-invasive tactics in the name of "pre-emptive Policing".  While US law enforcement officers are, for example, able to set up controlled areas into which people will be only granted access if they agree to be searched, their powers of random stop-and-search are hugely curtailed.

While articles on Fox News are often greeted with howls of derision, it's well worth a read.  You can view the whole piece here .

Hat-tip: AW

By Alex Deane

Many will be astonished today by the news that Andrew Marr obtained a superinjunction in the past. The hypocrisy of someone who has held forth on privacy laws, as he has done, and a journalist to boot, gagging free speech, is plain for all to see – so on one view there's no point in banging on about it beyond noting the one rule for them dictum in action once again (with the "them" being our media elite, of course – you can imagine all too easily the reaction to any politician admitting this).

There is, though, something else to note I think.

The injunction, which he apparently now regrets, elicited a comment from Mr Marr this morning which ended with delicious pomposity – and optimism – when he said that he would be making no further comment. Dream on, I think.

Our friends in the fourth estate, who like little better than turning on the prone carcass of one of their own, will now be picking over every interview he's done. Should he have offered even the mildest criticism in any interview with someone who has obtained an injunction – especially since the time of his own, when he should perhaps have declared his interest in the subject – I think that Mr Marr will find himself with an awful lot more to say on the subject. None of it, I imagine, will answer the question of why we taxpayers should pay for his hypocritical career, but some will wonder.

This article also appeared on ConservativeHome.

The Big Brother Watch team are no strangers to petty municipal bureaucracy, a story we've been sent this morning really does take the biscuit…

According to a report in the Daily Mail, a 74-year-old green-fingered grandmother has been told by council binmen that they are unable to collect her rubbish as a result of her bin containing weeds which have "too much mud stuck to their roots".  When she complained about their nit-picking, a 'Community Recycling Officer' was promptly dispatched to her home who then conducted a thorough sift through her rubbish in order to "examine just how dirty its contents were".

The lady in question, Kay McIntyre said: "‘It’s the lunatics in charge of the asylum. Are we going to be asked to wash our weeds next?".  The answer, Mrs McIntyre, appears to be "yes".

Click here for the full story.

Welcome to the Big Brother Watch newsletter.  Happy Easter!

As always, if we can ever be of any assistance, please do get in touch with us.  We can be reached by e-mail at [email protected]

BT and TalkTalk lose challenge to Digital Economy Act

As no doubt you have heard by now, four out of the five judicial review claims on the Digital Economy Act brought to court by BT and TalkTalk have been dismissed. BT and TalkTalk argued that the Digital Economy Act was illegal under privacy and e-commerce laws, that the impact on business was disproportionate, and that the UK failed to notify the EU of the impending implementation of the law. Mr Justice Parker ruled today that all of these issues were not feasible reasons to deem the Digital Economy Act illegal except for the cost order which mandates that ISPs pay 25% of the charges incurred in implementation. A review of this cost order will now take place.

Where does the information from your mobile phone go?

The recent revelation that iPhones store personal geolocational data shouldn’t really surprise anyone, but Big Brother Watch has discovered some evidence of the potential uses of this information. Firstly, we hear the story of Green Party politician Malte Spitz in Germany, who sued his network provider Deutsche Telekom to force them to hand over six months of his phone data. He then passed this on to Zeit Online, a German website, who combined the geolocational data with readily available information from online resources such as Twitter, blog entries and websites.

Electrician faces the sack over cross in work vehicle

Occasionally the BBW team are sent stories which truly beggars belief.  The example of a former soldier and electrician who faces the sack for displaying a palm cross on the dashboard of his company van is one such case.

According to news reports, 64-year-old Colin Atkinson has been ordered by his employer – the Wakefield and District Housing Association – to remove the cross from his work van for fear it could "offend tenants".  The Housing Association does not, however, ban employees of other faiths from wearing head-dresses and turbans.

Survey of school staff reveals banned playground games

In recent years there have been numerous stories in the press regarding the madness of health and safety regulations, but with so much denial and buck-passing, it can be hard to tell what is true and what is made up. However, recent research into traditional school games has given quantifiable evidence that bureaucracy and fear of litigation is depriving children of exercise, entertainment and competitive spirit.

Media Highlights

Daniel Hamilton on Sky News discussing an iPhone application which logs the location of the user.

Daniel Hamilton on BBC Radio Kent discussing local councils and their use of bailiffs and debt recovery agencies.

Daily Telegraph – Apple iPhone tracks users' location in hidden file

Daniel Hamilton, director of the privacy lobby group Big Brother Watch said: “iPhone users will rightly be concerned that their movements are being covertly monitored in this way.

“Apple has a duty to immediately provide their customers with details about how to disable this invasive software." 

Daily Mail – Church's 'ludicrous' ban on worshippers photographing child choir

The Big Brother Watch organisation, which campaigns against State and official intrusion, has posted a picture of Birmingham Cathedral’s sign on its website under the headline: ‘Cathedral falls victim to child protection hysteria.’

Evening Standard – Hope for motorists in landmark CCTV parking fine victory

There are 43 Smart Cars equipped with CCTV in at least 24 boroughs, according to civil liberties group Big Brother Watch.  

Metro – BT loses battle against file-sharing web law that 'invades privacy'

‘This ruling will force internet service providers, for fear of being prosecuted, to impose strict controls on the type of web services their users may or may not access,’ Daniel Hamilton, director of privacy group Big Brother Watch, said. 

Times Education Supplement – The Issue : Biometric technology

However, Daniel Hamilton, of civil liberties group Big Brother Watch, says biometric technology has no place in schools. He believes that vital data could be stolen or misused and that young people do not necessarily understand the risks. “I absolutely support the proposed changes to the law,” he says. “If I was a parent, I wouldn’t allow a school to take my child’s fingerprints.” And he has little sympathy for heads who complain about the bureaucratic burden: “Just because a law is inconvenient doesn’t make it wrong.”

Ways to help Big Brother Watch

• Donate to the campaign
• Keep us posted on any stories you see that we might be interested in
• Forward this newsletter to a friend and encourage them to sign up to the mailing list
• Join our Facebook group
• Subscribe to our YouTube channel
• Follow our Twitter feed

As no doubt you have heard by now, four out of the five judicial review claims on the Digital Economy Act brought to court by BT and TalkTalk have been dismissed. BT and TalkTalk argued that the Digital Economy Act was illegal under privacy and e-commerce laws, that the impact on business was disproportionate, and that the UK failed to notify the EU of the impending implementation of the law. Mr Justice Parker ruled today that all of these issues were not feasible reasons to deem the Digital Economy Act illegal except for the cost order which mandates that ISPs pay 25% of the charges incurred in implementation. A review of this cost order will now take place.

We at Big Brother Watch are disappointed in this ruling. Our very own Dan Hamilton said today,

The Digital Economy Act represents a worrying incursion on Internet users' personal privacy and freedom of access to information. This ruling will force Internet Service Providers, for fear of being prosecuted, to impose strict controls on the type of web services their users may or may not access. While illegal copyright infringement is a serious problem which must be tackled, expanding government control over the internet is a hugely regressive step.

The Open Rights Group, along with other campaigners are equally concerned about the issues of privacy and legitimacy surrounding the implementation of the Digital Economy Act. The full ruling can be found here.

Though BT and TalkTalk may appeal the decision, the wheels are now in motion for the current government to enact the Digital Economy Act that was passed in the waning days of the last Labour administration. There are several significant points to be made about the DEA in addition to all of the problems surrounding its implementation. The entire Digital Economy Act is not at issue here and in fact many aspects of the DEA are positive like the arrangement of the spectrum auction happening next year. However, the part of the DEA involving what to do about illegal file sharing and digital copyright breaches is at issue. First, the implementation of this will mean that the government is forcing ISPs to fundamentally shift their business practices, shift investment away from next generation technologies and relay the additional costs of all of this to the customer.

The second, and more concerning issue, is that the government will be involved in regulating the Internet and impacting the privacy of individuals on the Internet. With the implementation of the DEA in full swing, the government will become the ultimate decision maker in who gets to be online and who has their service terminated as well as whose privacy is breached in order to serve the needs of copyright holders. The government is playing the broker in Internet access and the middleman in between copyright holders and copyright violators. And we know how well that is working out for France.

In recent years there have been numerous stories in the press regarding the madness of health and safety regulations, but with so much denial and buck-passing, it can be hard to tell what is true and what is made up. However, recent research into traditional school games has given quantifiable evidence that bureaucracy and fear of litigation is depriving children of exercise, entertainment and competitive spirit.

653 heads, teachers and support staff were questioned by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL), and the results were fairly dispiriting. The majority (57%) said they felt schools were becoming increasingly risk averse, with more than a quarter of them having banned the game British bulldog. One sixth of playgrounds have banned playing with conkers while 5% have even prevented kids from using marbles. Ironically some teacher claimed that conkers are banned due to an increase in nut allergies, caused by children lacking the necessary immunity gained by playing outside more.

Tim Gill, former director of the Children’s Play Council at the National Children’s Bureau, said:

“Schools have forgotten how to give children a good childhood. Bumps and scrapes and dealing with life’s trials are part and parcel of growing into a confident and resilient person. You can only learn through experience.”

The banning of playground games has coincided with a drop in field trips due to teachers concerns about form filling, safety fears and being sued in the unlikely event of an accident occurring. Despite a massive 92% of staff believing school trips and activities are important to enhance learning, 31% said the number of school trips was in permanent decline. One teacher even explained that a week-long trip overseas had needed around 100 hours worth of planning before it was allowed to go ahead.

ATL general secretary, Mary Bousted, said:

"Teachers, lecturers, support staff and school leaders all recognise that children need to be safe, however, without encountering risk it is difficult for them to learn their own limitations."

The fear of accidents has even affected sports, with some schools now using a soft ball for football and banning tackles from rugby. Apart from changing the basic elements of the game, this stops children from ever learning how to play the actual sport in later life. We are hardly likely to find the football and rugby stars of the future if children are playing watered down versions of these sports.

Without experience of risk and competition at a young age, children enter the real world lacking a variety of vital skills. One solution would be for the government to support head teachers in restoring these traditional games. The fear of litigation and bureaucracy is forcing schools to remove necessary elements of childhood; they must feel like the government is on their side.

Bob Blackman MP has written a piece for Conservative Home extolling the virtues of the recent changes in legislation for the sale of cigarettes, including the display ban. However, there are a number of contradictions and problems with his article.

Early on he states:

“It is right that the days of intrusive governing are over but we cannot simply allow such damaging behaviour to continue with insufficient support available for those who wish to rid their lives of this addiction. I welcome that fact that David Cameron has set up a behavioural insight team in the heart of his Government to help design an environment that is conducive to healthy behaviour.”

This is a clear oxymoron. Either the Government operates a policy of targeted intrusions into personal freedom, or it does not. To select which elements of liberty and choice are left to the populace and which are decided by Government is a return to the nanny-state approach employed by New Labour.

Read more

Sainsbury’s have begun a trial which monitors the shopping habits of customers. Currently only a voluntary system, customers are asked if they would like to participate when they enter the flagship superstore in Crayford, Kent. They are then given a specially equipped trolley and a handheld scanner, which they use while selecting items to purchase. The trolley contains a GPS device which tracks movement around the store. The information gathered is then downloaded after the goods have been paid for. Sainsbury’s are encouraging customers to enter the trial by bribing them with vouchers and discounts. The company hopes to use the information to help plan decisions on the layout of stores and the positioning of products.

Although this seems relatively benign, it has some potentially worrying consequences. If successful, the system may stop being voluntary, and be introduced throughout all stores. Currently, customers can choose whether to use a loyalty card which tracks purchases, and opt-out if they prefer not to. This system will give the company even more information about consumer habits, allowing more targeted, potentially unwanted marketing to be sent out to shoppers. It will also keep records of any purchases from the in-store pharmacy, which may be private and confidential.

If the “trolley tracker” system is to be rolled out throughout England, it should remain completely voluntary, to allow customers shopping habits to be anonymous and avoid receiving additional unwanted marketing.