Mark Steyn hammers home well in his Telegraph opinion piece, touching on things like the difference in social perspectives between adults and adolescents and making good points such as "the idea that the national government can legislate respect is a large part of the reason why there isn't any". And while I agree with him that enforcing a working week of less than 48 hours isn't necessarily the right thing to do, there's certainly an issue around why people do work - or want to work - as much as they do.
Of course, if thinking on this gets no further than "stick an orange suit on community offenders", then this "problem" is going to get a whole lot worse. (Fortunately, such blatantly pap plans are quickly shelved, but that doesn't detract from the fact that our politicians are still sitting in the Westminster Ivory Tower.)
The obvious irony is that ID Cards will be making a return later today... If Tony Blair wants people to respect each other (and, I assume, him) then why is he pushing for yet more draconian controls that move the balance of power away from the people, and into the Government's all-knowing arms? Screw the new-old government, I say. Its head is even further up its own arse than before.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Thursday, May 12, 2005
The Two Faces of CCTV
CCTV is coming under fire in Polegate and Marlow, seemingly because while "disturbances" continued in high streets, the cameras themselves were either broken ("There was a problem with the actual camera itself") or just pointed in the wrong place (so presumably unmonitored - "[Youths] were not doing anything in particular, just standing on the steps. But the CCTV cameras were pointing at the railway signal box.").
This highlights one of the shortfalls of town surveillance cameras - their use is actually twofold, and when one purpose fails to achieve what it was supposed to, people can at least turn to the other. But when both fail, suddenly people wake up to the world they actually live in.
The first purpose is, as given in the two articles above, to catch video evidence of people committing crime (or anti-social behaviour, or whatever your gripe is this week), so the perps can be caught to bere-educated locked up for good.
The second purpose (as used to be pointed out all the time, I'm sure) is as a preventative measure - the theory being that if you think you're being watched, you're less likely to go ahead with the crime you're thinking of.*
Alas, in reality it turns out that people don't really care if they're being watched. Or if they do, then they're smart enough to at least keep half an eye on which direction the visible cameras are pointing in - no big deal. Hey - maybe there was something to the suggestion that CCTV merely displaces crime after all? "Time-shifting" might also be applicable here too...
The big assumption in our application of surveillance systems is that, somehow, by letting people know we're watching them, people will "improve". All this talk of ID, more cameras, more policemen, etc all assumes that the places in which we live can be improved by this monitoring - and by extension, we recapture the idea of a "civil society" that we like to romanticise about.
What a sham. If we're really honest with ourselves, all monitoring does is lock down the public face of our nation, allowing us in our public capacity to simply sweep aside all the factors that lead to the crime and attitude we're experiencing every day. By forcing the streets to behave and look nice for visitors (including ourselves), we can comfortably ignore the deep social distress being hidden by private walls and fences.
The second article above mentions that "a high visibility operation ..., in response to these concerns, had been a success." More officers works in the short term for the simple reason that they can react instantly. They are both the piercing eye of the CCTV camera and the radio link from surveillance central to the police station. But they do nothing to actually show us how we should behave, or what we can achieve if we're allowed to.
* On a side note, this thinking has now been extended on buses where I live. A monitor downstairs, in full public view, reflects the views from a dozen cameras around the bus. This is clearly not for the driver's attention as he/she can't see it. The obvious intention is that instant social embarassment is more of a deterrent that just having a camera watch you. I await the scheme's failure.
This highlights one of the shortfalls of town surveillance cameras - their use is actually twofold, and when one purpose fails to achieve what it was supposed to, people can at least turn to the other. But when both fail, suddenly people wake up to the world they actually live in.
The first purpose is, as given in the two articles above, to catch video evidence of people committing crime (or anti-social behaviour, or whatever your gripe is this week), so the perps can be caught to be
The second purpose (as used to be pointed out all the time, I'm sure) is as a preventative measure - the theory being that if you think you're being watched, you're less likely to go ahead with the crime you're thinking of.*
Alas, in reality it turns out that people don't really care if they're being watched. Or if they do, then they're smart enough to at least keep half an eye on which direction the visible cameras are pointing in - no big deal. Hey - maybe there was something to the suggestion that CCTV merely displaces crime after all? "Time-shifting" might also be applicable here too...
The big assumption in our application of surveillance systems is that, somehow, by letting people know we're watching them, people will "improve". All this talk of ID, more cameras, more policemen, etc all assumes that the places in which we live can be improved by this monitoring - and by extension, we recapture the idea of a "civil society" that we like to romanticise about.
What a sham. If we're really honest with ourselves, all monitoring does is lock down the public face of our nation, allowing us in our public capacity to simply sweep aside all the factors that lead to the crime and attitude we're experiencing every day. By forcing the streets to behave and look nice for visitors (including ourselves), we can comfortably ignore the deep social distress being hidden by private walls and fences.
The second article above mentions that "a high visibility operation ..., in response to these concerns, had been a success." More officers works in the short term for the simple reason that they can react instantly. They are both the piercing eye of the CCTV camera and the radio link from surveillance central to the police station. But they do nothing to actually show us how we should behave, or what we can achieve if we're allowed to.
* On a side note, this thinking has now been extended on buses where I live. A monitor downstairs, in full public view, reflects the views from a dozen cameras around the bus. This is clearly not for the driver's attention as he/she can't see it. The obvious intention is that instant social embarassment is more of a deterrent that just having a camera watch you. I await the scheme's failure.
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Leave yer attitude at the door
Man, I hate Bluewater shopping centre. But anyway. Hooded tops, baseball caps and swearing have been banned there in a police-backed decision. Apparently the 400, constantly-monitored CCTV cameras and the "dedicated on-site team" of Police have actually done.. not a lot. So now they're drawing up a "code of conduct" (i.e. their own law) to stop people from being antisocial (including smoking, leafleting or canvassing).
This is our nation's future, right here. When we've fallen apart so much we don't know how to treat each other, the only solution left is more and more stringent rules to keep out the people we've already kept out for ages. Hardware and force are our new-age replacements for commitment to society, and arrogant selfishness embeds itself firmly as the mantra of the masses.
This is our nation's future, right here. When we've fallen apart so much we don't know how to treat each other, the only solution left is more and more stringent rules to keep out the people we've already kept out for ages. Hardware and force are our new-age replacements for commitment to society, and arrogant selfishness embeds itself firmly as the mantra of the masses.
Meanwhile, across the pond....
Looks like America is getting an ID Card - the passed bill H.R.1268 - Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for the "Global War on Terror", Tsunami Relief, et al - also manages to somehow sneak in H.R.418, which expands the grounds for which a person can be refused entry into the United States, increases the burden of proof of innocence on asylum seekers, removes checks on how "exploitable" the asylum system is, shifts the balance of power over definition by letting the Department of Homeland Security determine what "terrorism" is, and what "engaging in terrorist activities" means, and a whole bunch of other stuff. (Congressional Research Services have an excellent analysis* [PDF]). Most importantly, it upgrades state-issued driving licenses and other photo identification to act as ID Cards; under the Bill, a set of requirements mandated by Congress must be adhered to by each state out of their own pocket. (Over here in the UK, of course, we have to fund our own ID card personally...) Unsurprisingly, the states are bothered by this somewhat. Furthermore, the information collected would (like the UK) be stored in a central database.
Crypto expert Bruce Schneier blasts the idea of ID cards, and his article along with two previous ones [1, 2] go into good depth on why the bill is a bad one, and secondly provide arguments that are equally relevant to the ID situation here in the UK too. Of particular note:
"In theory, if we know who you are, and if we have enough information about you, we can somehow predict whether you're likely to be an evildoer. ... Profiling has two very dangerous failure modes. The first one is obvious. The intent of profiling is to divide people into two categories: people who may be evildoers and need to be screened more carefully, and people who are less likely to be evildoers and can be screened less carefully. But any such system will create a third, and very dangerous, category: evildoers who don't fit the profile."
There are number of assumptions as to how ID Cards will prevent ... well, anything. These are:
That last one is up to you to decide, ultimately. But, for example, if the definition of "terrorist" is in the hands of the people who stand to gain most from waging war against terrorists, how much can you really trust them? Schlumberger say ID Cards are a good thing for the nation. Schlumberger sell ID Cards. The Police asy ID Cards are a good thing for security. The Police's sole purpose of existence is security. We, as individuals, are about more than that.
More about the US REAL ID act at unrealid.com.
* Which includes the great example arising from the new, expanded definitions:
"...if organization A has a subgroup A1 that raises funds for organization B (among other groups) and organization B distributes funds to organization C (among other groups), which has a subgroup C1 that at some point provided support to a terrorist activity or organisation, organisation A apparently would qualify as a terrorist oragnisation ... absent the group's ability to somehow extricate itself by showing it could not have reasonably drawn the connection between its subgroup's fund raising and subgroup C1."
Crypto expert Bruce Schneier blasts the idea of ID cards, and his article along with two previous ones [1, 2] go into good depth on why the bill is a bad one, and secondly provide arguments that are equally relevant to the ID situation here in the UK too. Of particular note:
"In theory, if we know who you are, and if we have enough information about you, we can somehow predict whether you're likely to be an evildoer. ... Profiling has two very dangerous failure modes. The first one is obvious. The intent of profiling is to divide people into two categories: people who may be evildoers and need to be screened more carefully, and people who are less likely to be evildoers and can be screened less carefully. But any such system will create a third, and very dangerous, category: evildoers who don't fit the profile."
There are number of assumptions as to how ID Cards will prevent ... well, anything. These are:
- the card is non-forgable. Has any documentation ever been non-forgable/tie-able to a particular person?
- the profiling system (if used - and hey, if you have all that data on file, why not if it helps "protect the citizen"?) is accurate enough to discern people according to what screening is wanted - more uncharted, highly dubious territory
- the people deciding where the lines of discernment should fall are acting in the card-owners' best interests
That last one is up to you to decide, ultimately. But, for example, if the definition of "terrorist" is in the hands of the people who stand to gain most from waging war against terrorists, how much can you really trust them? Schlumberger say ID Cards are a good thing for the nation. Schlumberger sell ID Cards. The Police asy ID Cards are a good thing for security. The Police's sole purpose of existence is security. We, as individuals, are about more than that.
More about the US REAL ID act at unrealid.com.
* Which includes the great example arising from the new, expanded definitions:
"...if organization A has a subgroup A1 that raises funds for organization B (among other groups) and organization B distributes funds to organization C (among other groups), which has a subgroup C1 that at some point provided support to a terrorist activity or organisation, organisation A apparently would qualify as a terrorist oragnisation ... absent the group's ability to somehow extricate itself by showing it could not have reasonably drawn the connection between its subgroup's fund raising and subgroup C1."
Monday, May 09, 2005
The Ubiquity of Unnatural Surveillance
Bit of a surveillance round-up. ParkingEye are running a press release to gather business in Scotland for their panoptic product line-up, so I shouldn't give them too much coverage... ;) Traffic wardens are among the various human factors that people love to hate, so it makes sense to automate them - after all, who could hate a lovable (unseen and impenetrable) robot? Awww.
Still, if you do manage to get around the scheme, expect them to chaneg the rules to say "you can't". Phew, just as well they've got every base covered.
Meanwhile in Muswell Hill, traders are crying out for a surveillance society. As usual, the folks looking for a quick fix to their own problem are ready and willing to sell out (read "lock up") the people who are supposed to be their neighbours. And, they would say, why not? Why not indeed? These nuisances of society deserve to be watched and treated suspiciously at all times, surely?
How about this - why not start addressing the problem of why people are getting so rat-arsed in the first place? Why not wake up to how we got here in the first place? The death of the human soul, the greying result of a culture in which work is more important than life, in which money is worth more than love, and in which getting people to like you is more attractive than liking yourself.
Our counter-culture of "partying" is a direct reaction to our culture of obsessive repression, and our fear of "failure". CCTV and all of its brethrenly observational ilk do nothing more than control us even further, beyond the controls we impress upon ourselves 10 hours a day. This is why surveillance will always produce nothing but underground revelry and a false sense of security.
Still, if you do manage to get around the scheme, expect them to chaneg the rules to say "you can't". Phew, just as well they've got every base covered.
Meanwhile in Muswell Hill, traders are crying out for a surveillance society. As usual, the folks looking for a quick fix to their own problem are ready and willing to sell out (read "lock up") the people who are supposed to be their neighbours. And, they would say, why not? Why not indeed? These nuisances of society deserve to be watched and treated suspiciously at all times, surely?
How about this - why not start addressing the problem of why people are getting so rat-arsed in the first place? Why not wake up to how we got here in the first place? The death of the human soul, the greying result of a culture in which work is more important than life, in which money is worth more than love, and in which getting people to like you is more attractive than liking yourself.
Our counter-culture of "partying" is a direct reaction to our culture of obsessive repression, and our fear of "failure". CCTV and all of its brethrenly observational ilk do nothing more than control us even further, beyond the controls we impress upon ourselves 10 hours a day. This is why surveillance will always produce nothing but underground revelry and a false sense of security.
Saturday, May 07, 2005
Back in the closet
Well, Blunkett's back, albeit as work and pensions sec. Does this mean we'll be moving away from criticising Labour's authoritatian streak and start dusting down our jackets? Hell no. Flinging aside the aspersions cast on Mr B's character leading to his exit, Blair has decided that Dave is feeling better, and is now prepared to step back into society and start tossing his orb about.
Rest assured, more blog inches will be dedicated to Clarke's ongoing campaigns, which may face harder opposition now Labour's majority has been squashed somewhat:
"Out of the 19 Labour MPs who voted against the government, 16 have been returned to parliament (with the remaining three standing down), while all 10 of the Conservative MPs who defied Michael Howard's instruction to abstain and instead voted with the Labour rebels have been re-elected. Other anti-ID card MPs who also won seats last night include Labour outcast George Galloway and Wyre Forest Independent Richard Taylor."
And, as Spyblog points out, Des Browne moves from Citizenship, Immigration and Nationality to a new spot as Chief Secretary to the Treasury. We await to see
Rest assured, more blog inches will be dedicated to Clarke's ongoing campaigns, which may face harder opposition now Labour's majority has been squashed somewhat:
"Out of the 19 Labour MPs who voted against the government, 16 have been returned to parliament (with the remaining three standing down), while all 10 of the Conservative MPs who defied Michael Howard's instruction to abstain and instead voted with the Labour rebels have been re-elected. Other anti-ID card MPs who also won seats last night include Labour outcast George Galloway and Wyre Forest Independent Richard Taylor."
And, as Spyblog points out, Des Browne moves from Citizenship, Immigration and Nationality to a new spot as Chief Secretary to the Treasury. We await to see
Friday, May 06, 2005
Touching Roots
BIAA has been pretty quiet recently - personal pressures, and the Signal-to-Noise ratio during the electioneering phase take their toll. Anyway, the election is in full swing, as it were, and here's the data on Blunkett, if you're interested.
Friday, April 15, 2005
Attention deflected, Cap'n.
Been away for a few days, so only been loosely following the Order of Things. Election time fills me with manic glumness as promises and pooh-poohed arguments fall over themselves to get media attention. The fate of the next 4 years decided by a month of political polemic, good-oh.
The Kamel Bourgass story has been particularly notable for its lack of level-headedness, though. I suggest ignoring the print media on this one, and going straight to both The Register and Spy Blog for more interesting takes on the matter. The bandwagon stirred up around this one is well worth a look, just to note how well the public media machine lumbers into life when needed. Also worth a peek, perhaps, is the BBC's amusing analysis, which highlights documents attributed to Bin Laden "downloaded from the internet", and the finding of "scales, thermometers, rubber gloves, a coffee grinder, batteries and bulbs" in the flat. Heavens, I never knew washing up was considered so dangerous.
Meanwhile, I'll be writing to my MP to make sure that castor beans are banned, or at least subject to identity checks at point of purchase. Rice should also be carefully controlled, due to its aural similarity to "ricin" which may confuse eavesdroppers, leading to yet more embarassing arrest scenarios that have to be covered up in a blanket of spin.
The Kamel Bourgass story has been particularly notable for its lack of level-headedness, though. I suggest ignoring the print media on this one, and going straight to both The Register and Spy Blog for more interesting takes on the matter. The bandwagon stirred up around this one is well worth a look, just to note how well the public media machine lumbers into life when needed. Also worth a peek, perhaps, is the BBC's amusing analysis, which highlights documents attributed to Bin Laden "downloaded from the internet", and the finding of "scales, thermometers, rubber gloves, a coffee grinder, batteries and bulbs" in the flat. Heavens, I never knew washing up was considered so dangerous.
Meanwhile, I'll be writing to my MP to make sure that castor beans are banned, or at least subject to identity checks at point of purchase. Rice should also be carefully controlled, due to its aural similarity to "ricin" which may confuse eavesdroppers, leading to yet more embarassing arrest scenarios that have to be covered up in a blanket of spin.
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
Question 1. Define "terrorism". (10 marks)
This is a strange one. In February 2003, Hazil Rahaman-Alan concealed a grenade in his luggage upon flying to Gatwick, with the intent of blowing everyone up. "The grenade would be his microphone to the world." Furthermore, "during the flight, he had drawn attention to himself by moving around the aircraft and appearing to be nervous". Stopped at random at Gatwick, he was charged under the Terrorism Act, but this has now been changed to the Explosives Act and the Aviation Act. Why? Because he's not a terrorist...
Back in 2003, the Guardian article notes, the Met police commissioner warned alongside the original arrest that al-Qaida terrorists had a "substantial presence" in Britain. Yet this al-Qaida hitman is now apparently completely otherwise. No real reason for this reversal is given, although the BBC article notes that "his motives were obscure."
Why is this important? Because it's about boundaries, and where lines are drawn. One man, with an intent to kill a plane load of people in the name of getting people with power to listen, is an evil terrorist, while the other is a slightly disturbed loon, perhaps. The difference? In this case, perhaps the mental state of the accused, or perhaps the plight he was trying to bring attention to ("starving children in Africa", possibly), or maybe even the fact that his plan would never have succeeded.
The focus, here, is on how we use language. What is a "terrorist" anyway, and how are they different to a "suicide bomber" or a "political activist"? More importantly, what are we trying to achieve when we paint someone with any of these terms, even before they've had a fair trial? And what, maybe as in this case, are we capable of totally ignoring while we carry out our modern-day witch-hunts?
Meanwhile, Stephen Wilkinson has defected from Labour to the Lib Dems, due to Labour's authoritarian angles. As the Beeb puts it, "he also criticised the use of the threat of terror to push for house arrest and compulsory ID cards and to justify the war in Iraq."
Back in 2003, the Guardian article notes, the Met police commissioner warned alongside the original arrest that al-Qaida terrorists had a "substantial presence" in Britain. Yet this al-Qaida hitman is now apparently completely otherwise. No real reason for this reversal is given, although the BBC article notes that "his motives were obscure."
Why is this important? Because it's about boundaries, and where lines are drawn. One man, with an intent to kill a plane load of people in the name of getting people with power to listen, is an evil terrorist, while the other is a slightly disturbed loon, perhaps. The difference? In this case, perhaps the mental state of the accused, or perhaps the plight he was trying to bring attention to ("starving children in Africa", possibly), or maybe even the fact that his plan would never have succeeded.
The focus, here, is on how we use language. What is a "terrorist" anyway, and how are they different to a "suicide bomber" or a "political activist"? More importantly, what are we trying to achieve when we paint someone with any of these terms, even before they've had a fair trial? And what, maybe as in this case, are we capable of totally ignoring while we carry out our modern-day witch-hunts?
Meanwhile, Stephen Wilkinson has defected from Labour to the Lib Dems, due to Labour's authoritarian angles. As the Beeb puts it, "he also criticised the use of the threat of terror to push for house arrest and compulsory ID cards and to justify the war in Iraq."
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Caution: Constitutional upset in progress.
Another day, another harsh criticism of the ID Register Bill. The House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution has released its 6 page report (PDF).
Not got time to read through it right now, but the Register has an accompanying article. Some good advice, it would seem, being presented, but it remains to be seen whether the Home Secretary will actually listen to any of it - there doesn't appear to be much sign of movement at this stage of the procedings.
Not got time to read through it right now, but the Register has an accompanying article. Some good advice, it would seem, being presented, but it remains to be seen whether the Home Secretary will actually listen to any of it - there doesn't appear to be much sign of movement at this stage of the procedings.
Monday, March 28, 2005
Meeting a soldier? Watch your back...
A curious one, this. BBC news reports that one Abu Baker Mansha has been charged under the Terrorism Act, "after allegedly being found with a soldier's name and address written on a piece of paper."
No other details, although hopefully Google News will turn up some goods soon. It'd obviously be stupid to infer anything in either direction with such little info, and it's hard from the report to tell if the address was actually "written", or otherwise. (The Beeb say the former, then claim the charge says the paper merely contained the name and address.) The form of the address may lend some clue to how it was obtained and, therefore, maybe what it was being used for (think about when you write an address down as opposed to when you have a printed copy), but naturally it wouldn't be good to speculate... At least, that's what common sense dictates. The intelligence agencies may say different.
Furthermore, why was he charged 4 days after being arrested? I'm not a Policeman. Do these things usually take that long?
The trial should be tomorrow (Tuesday). Meanwhile, all soldiers have been relocated and had their names changed to protect the security of this glorious nation*. Huzzah!
(*quite possibly not true)
Update: Thee BBC link above now mentions article 58 (1b) of the Terrorism Act, which says:
It goes on to say:
Hmm, note that "reasonable excuse" is a defence after the charge has been made, not a reason for not charging in the first place... (IANAL... is that right?)
I'm having a little trouble finding out just what "information" is "likely to be useful" to a terrorist. The Act itself doesn't seem to define it.
It's probably also worth looking at section 103 too, which runs along similar lines as the charge above, only more vague:
The people in question, that it's illegal to write down information about, or tell anyone else about, are: constables, members of Her Majesty's Forces (e.g. soldiers), holders of a judicial office, officers of any court, or full-time employees of the Northern Ireland prison service. Oh, "information" also includes a photograph. So those photos of my mate's sister, who happens to be a police officer, are illegal?
Furthermore, you're liable, if charged, for this information if you were "on any premises at the same time" as it, or if you regularly visit(ed) those premises. Ignorace of such evidence has to then be proven by you, i.e. somehow, you have to work out a way of saying that you weren't aware of something. I suggest that students of philosophical logic should start applying as Barristers now.
Man, if they want you toasted, you're toast. To quote... "In fact, you're gonna have to work very hard to stay alive."
No other details, although hopefully Google News will turn up some goods soon. It'd obviously be stupid to infer anything in either direction with such little info, and it's hard from the report to tell if the address was actually "written", or otherwise. (The Beeb say the former, then claim the charge says the paper merely contained the name and address.) The form of the address may lend some clue to how it was obtained and, therefore, maybe what it was being used for (think about when you write an address down as opposed to when you have a printed copy), but naturally it wouldn't be good to speculate... At least, that's what common sense dictates. The intelligence agencies may say different.
Furthermore, why was he charged 4 days after being arrested? I'm not a Policeman. Do these things usually take that long?
The trial should be tomorrow (Tuesday). Meanwhile, all soldiers have been relocated and had their names changed to protect the security of this glorious nation*. Huzzah!
(*quite possibly not true)
Update: Thee BBC link above now mentions article 58 (1b) of the Terrorism Act, which says:
58. - (1) A person commits an offence if-
(a) he collects or makes a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or
(b) he possesses a document or record containing information of that kind.
It goes on to say:
(2) In this section "record" includes a photographic or electronic record.
(3) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had a reasonable excuse for his action or possession.
Hmm, note that "reasonable excuse" is a defence after the charge has been made, not a reason for not charging in the first place... (IANAL... is that right?)
I'm having a little trouble finding out just what "information" is "likely to be useful" to a terrorist. The Act itself doesn't seem to define it.
It's probably also worth looking at section 103 too, which runs along similar lines as the charge above, only more vague:
103.- (1) A person commits an offence if-
(a) he collects, makes a record of, publishes, communicates or attempts to elicit information about a person to whom this section applies which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or
(b) he possesses a document or record containing information of that kind.
The people in question, that it's illegal to write down information about, or tell anyone else about, are: constables, members of Her Majesty's Forces (e.g. soldiers), holders of a judicial office, officers of any court, or full-time employees of the Northern Ireland prison service. Oh, "information" also includes a photograph. So those photos of my mate's sister, who happens to be a police officer, are illegal?
Furthermore, you're liable, if charged, for this information if you were "on any premises at the same time" as it, or if you regularly visit(ed) those premises. Ignorace of such evidence has to then be proven by you, i.e. somehow, you have to work out a way of saying that you weren't aware of something. I suggest that students of philosophical logic should start applying as Barristers now.
Man, if they want you toasted, you're toast. To quote... "In fact, you're gonna have to work very hard to stay alive."
Friday, March 25, 2005
This is about us and us, not us and them.
No links. Instead, a thought just struck me, like a heavily-laden seagull smacking into a glass window.
All along, I've been thinking that ID Cards are a tool to challenge the existing lines of trust between the public and the government. This is still true, but (I've realised) more importantly, the real deal, an ID system will change the lines of trust between ourselves. Think about it for a moment. Here we have presented to us a method of "proving" that we are who we say we are. Its primary purpose, no matter what the "secondary" effects - disrupting terrorism, catching illegal workers etc - are, is to act as a single, unequivocal means by which the person looking at the card can be sure that we are who we say we are. Without this, the database behind it and all the associated "entitlement" schemes fall down. It is a Trust Card, first and foremost.
In effect, it is a system designed to replace the many informal ways of doing this that we have established already. It is a system that turns our social aspects into technical ones. Many say that this is more efficient, that we can only prevent disaster and crisis by having such a foolproof scheme in place, and to some extent (i.e. a theoretical extent and ignoring many other factors) this could be true. But in thinking this, we lose sight of what we will begin to lack as well.
Take a moment to reflect on the ways in which trust is built up. Do you trust your doctor? Does your doctor trust you? How about teachers, parents, the person in the local housing office, your estate agent, your bank manager, your local police? Why do you trust them to the degree that you do? ID cards, intent on providing proof, act formally. Under an ID system, you are only considered "trustworthy" if you can show something that was given to you by someone you've probably never met. Up until then, it would be fair to treat you as suspicious, just because everone else has their card, so why don't you? Whether or not the cards prove anything in reality is beside the point.
OK, so it's not like our human instincts are being completely over-ridden here. Just because someone presents their card to you, it doesn't mean you're forced to trust them... does it? Maybe not, but then you were never likely to in the first place. The damage is done to all those people who you had no reason to suspect of anything really, but were just suspicious of because they hadn't proved their ID yet.
First impressions count.
All along, I've been thinking that ID Cards are a tool to challenge the existing lines of trust between the public and the government. This is still true, but (I've realised) more importantly, the real deal, an ID system will change the lines of trust between ourselves. Think about it for a moment. Here we have presented to us a method of "proving" that we are who we say we are. Its primary purpose, no matter what the "secondary" effects - disrupting terrorism, catching illegal workers etc - are, is to act as a single, unequivocal means by which the person looking at the card can be sure that we are who we say we are. Without this, the database behind it and all the associated "entitlement" schemes fall down. It is a Trust Card, first and foremost.
In effect, it is a system designed to replace the many informal ways of doing this that we have established already. It is a system that turns our social aspects into technical ones. Many say that this is more efficient, that we can only prevent disaster and crisis by having such a foolproof scheme in place, and to some extent (i.e. a theoretical extent and ignoring many other factors) this could be true. But in thinking this, we lose sight of what we will begin to lack as well.
Take a moment to reflect on the ways in which trust is built up. Do you trust your doctor? Does your doctor trust you? How about teachers, parents, the person in the local housing office, your estate agent, your bank manager, your local police? Why do you trust them to the degree that you do? ID cards, intent on providing proof, act formally. Under an ID system, you are only considered "trustworthy" if you can show something that was given to you by someone you've probably never met. Up until then, it would be fair to treat you as suspicious, just because everone else has their card, so why don't you? Whether or not the cards prove anything in reality is beside the point.
OK, so it's not like our human instincts are being completely over-ridden here. Just because someone presents their card to you, it doesn't mean you're forced to trust them... does it? Maybe not, but then you were never likely to in the first place. The damage is done to all those people who you had no reason to suspect of anything really, but were just suspicious of because they hadn't proved their ID yet.
First impressions count.
Thursday, March 24, 2005
Brighton happenin' and pre-election warm-up voting.
Fiddlesticks, I forgot to mention the No2ID Brighton and Hove public meeting against ID cards, 7.30pm today. I am a fool. See you there.
Oh, we've also apparently made the Guardian shortlist for "single issue" blogs - how odd. Go vote, or something. Actually, go check out the other categories too, for more fun political blogging.
Oh, we've also apparently made the Guardian shortlist for "single issue" blogs - how odd. Go vote, or something. Actually, go check out the other categories too, for more fun political blogging.
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
The sound of inevitability
The Register summarises identity theft among large organisations in March, big figures that those looking to implement nationwide identity schemes should probably take some note of. The HO FAQ addresses these in a couple of places:
What’s the benefit of having biometrics? "Use of biometrics will also make it much more difficult for a fraudster to obtain a second identity card as the biometrics can be checked against those already on the National Identity Register to see if they are already registered. It will also provide an additional means of associating an individual to a particular identity card, which greatly increases the security and robustness by supplementing more traditional methods such as photographs and signatures."
Won’t an identity card be attractive to fraudsters and organised criminals? "Yes just as current identity documents are. This is why we will have strengthened identity checking procedures, biometrics and improved physical security measures both for existing identity documents and for identity cards."
So the government line tends to amount to not much more than "biometrics, biometrics, biometrics". Quite why the HO thinks it can guard customers' -- sorry, citizens' identities more securely than a large company, I'm not sure - maybe if their track record in technical projects had some semblance of success, I might be inclined to believe them... There are surely more constructs needed to ensure the necessary security than mere hardware aren't there? How much attention to education regarding the system should there be, for instance? What penalties/responsibility should there be for being careless with your own data, say?
As the Reg article points out, "The vast majority of incidents can be traced to ... just plain stupidity among those who 'own' our personal data." Shouldn't the government be planning some contingency for what happens if (/when) details are stolen and usable on a wide scale, rather than just assume they're not going to be?
What’s the benefit of having biometrics? "Use of biometrics will also make it much more difficult for a fraudster to obtain a second identity card as the biometrics can be checked against those already on the National Identity Register to see if they are already registered. It will also provide an additional means of associating an individual to a particular identity card, which greatly increases the security and robustness by supplementing more traditional methods such as photographs and signatures."
Won’t an identity card be attractive to fraudsters and organised criminals? "Yes just as current identity documents are. This is why we will have strengthened identity checking procedures, biometrics and improved physical security measures both for existing identity documents and for identity cards."
So the government line tends to amount to not much more than "biometrics, biometrics, biometrics". Quite why the HO thinks it can guard customers' -- sorry, citizens' identities more securely than a large company, I'm not sure - maybe if their track record in technical projects had some semblance of success, I might be inclined to believe them... There are surely more constructs needed to ensure the necessary security than mere hardware aren't there? How much attention to education regarding the system should there be, for instance? What penalties/responsibility should there be for being careless with your own data, say?
As the Reg article points out, "The vast majority of incidents can be traced to ... just plain stupidity among those who 'own' our personal data." Shouldn't the government be planning some contingency for what happens if (/when) details are stolen and usable on a wide scale, rather than just assume they're not going to be?
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Miscellanea
Coupla quick links...
Home Office attacked over accountability: "A new report from the Commons public administration committee found that Charles Clarke's department was the worst in Whitehall for offering an explanation as to why an answer could not be provided and for meeting deadlines for responses."
Scrap Asbo call after rural study - Shock! Giving young people something to do and listening to them may help!
Home Office attacked over accountability: "A new report from the Commons public administration committee found that Charles Clarke's department was the worst in Whitehall for offering an explanation as to why an answer could not be provided and for meeting deadlines for responses."
Scrap Asbo call after rural study - Shock! Giving young people something to do and listening to them may help!
Friday, March 18, 2005
Best kept secret
A week old maybe, but... Terror orders to be kept secret.
"The Home Office will not announce the issuing of further control orders after the first 10 were signed by Charles Clarke, the home secretary, last Saturday.
The move means that dozens of suspects could be subjected to the orders without voters knowing about it prior to the general election."
Looking for more details on this, but in the run up to the election, the Great Propaganda War is going to be responsible for a lot of "collateral damage". Screw people, power is more important.
"The Home Office will not announce the issuing of further control orders after the first 10 were signed by Charles Clarke, the home secretary, last Saturday.
The move means that dozens of suspects could be subjected to the orders without voters knowing about it prior to the general election."
Looking for more details on this, but in the run up to the election, the Great Propaganda War is going to be responsible for a lot of "collateral damage". Screw people, power is more important.
Monday, March 14, 2005
ID and election
The Reg has more on the ID Scheme being postponed until after the election, and the political strategies involved in its delay alongside the SOCA bill.
Shambles
Reality just as rushed as the law its based on. What now of the phrase "Preparing for emergencies", when its originators don't know the meaning of the word?
After the fiasco of the Foundation Hospitals and the ongoing mess that the ID card bill is in (information? what's that?), I thought things couldn't get much worse. Fortunately last week proved that there are depths of ineptitude rife amongst our governing elite that we haven't even begun to explore yet - hurrah!
Anyway, good to see suspicion rules the day. Safety through paranoia is the most safe anyone can be.
After the fiasco of the Foundation Hospitals and the ongoing mess that the ID card bill is in (information? what's that?), I thought things couldn't get much worse. Fortunately last week proved that there are depths of ineptitude rife amongst our governing elite that we haven't even begun to explore yet - hurrah!
Anyway, good to see suspicion rules the day. Safety through paranoia is the most safe anyone can be.
Friday, March 04, 2005
"The ID cards Bill is dead"
NO2ID reports (via e-mail - sign up here) that the government is set to abandon ID cards until after the election, according to this article in the Independent. It looks like the Tories have slowly (almost creakily) realised how bad the bill is, and how much they have to gain by opposing it.
"The ID cards Bill is dead," one minister told The Independent yesterday.
This gives plenty of time to assemble more resources, more campaign material and more call for a reasoned debate over the whole shenanigan. Good.
"The ID cards Bill is dead," one minister told The Independent yesterday.
This gives plenty of time to assemble more resources, more campaign material and more call for a reasoned debate over the whole shenanigan. Good.
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Downing Street Says...: "Terror"
Worth checking out: Downing Street Says...: Terror. Watch (ok, read) the PM squirm over the definition of "terrorists" and "700". "...there were distinctions to be made between different kinds of threat and the threat different people posed" - a grey scale then? I think you'll find that such distinctions may prove harder to implement legally in practice. Enjoy such gems as:
"...what the Prime Minister was most concerned about, as always, was that people should focus on the substance and not interpretation or speculation. The substance, as we had said consistently since 9/11, was that this country did face a threat. That threat varied but it was serious."
So that's a definite probability in continuous variability, then. And how about:
"We were concerned about [suspects] because, potentially, they were planning or considering potential terrorist action. Put to him that the Prime Minister had implied that these people were actively engaged, not merely considering terrorist action, the PMOS said that if someone was in any way suspected of being part of a potential terrorist action, no matter how small that part may be, that was the correct phraseology."
"suspected of being part of a potential ... no matter how small"? If we use this as a definition, then I'm getting MI5 to blag my postman, who probably buys illegal DVDs with the probable knowledge that this may fund something-or-other.
Also spot the avoidance of answering the question relating to what parties would be considered "terrorist".
Meanwhile, the Joint Committee on Human Rights has published its latest progress report, including a recap of its take on the ID Cards Bill and the SOCA Bill. Nothing new though - see "Human Rights? What they?" I do note, though, that the HO have published their response in handy, easy-to-read scanned-in-fax format. Espect to go crazy after page 4.
I'll try to post a better breakdown, but so far there's a lot of speculation as to how address-collection will work. The phrase "In a small minority of cases there may be a need to..." makes me laugh - surely the whole Bill is designed to "catch" the small "minority of cases" that make such schemes necessary in the first place? Or are they saying that actually, the majority of the population are scheming little toe-rags?
"...what the Prime Minister was most concerned about, as always, was that people should focus on the substance and not interpretation or speculation. The substance, as we had said consistently since 9/11, was that this country did face a threat. That threat varied but it was serious."
So that's a definite probability in continuous variability, then. And how about:
"We were concerned about [suspects] because, potentially, they were planning or considering potential terrorist action. Put to him that the Prime Minister had implied that these people were actively engaged, not merely considering terrorist action, the PMOS said that if someone was in any way suspected of being part of a potential terrorist action, no matter how small that part may be, that was the correct phraseology."
"suspected of being part of a potential ... no matter how small"? If we use this as a definition, then I'm getting MI5 to blag my postman, who probably buys illegal DVDs with the probable knowledge that this may fund something-or-other.
Also spot the avoidance of answering the question relating to what parties would be considered "terrorist".
Meanwhile, the Joint Committee on Human Rights has published its latest progress report, including a recap of its take on the ID Cards Bill and the SOCA Bill. Nothing new though - see "Human Rights? What they?" I do note, though, that the HO have published their response in handy, easy-to-read scanned-in-fax format. Espect to go crazy after page 4.
I'll try to post a better breakdown, but so far there's a lot of speculation as to how address-collection will work. The phrase "In a small minority of cases there may be a need to..." makes me laugh - surely the whole Bill is designed to "catch" the small "minority of cases" that make such schemes necessary in the first place? Or are they saying that actually, the majority of the population are scheming little toe-rags?
Liberty is dead! Long live liberty!
Good 2 page analysis at the Register with some valid points:
What's certain is that the government is now clearly in the grey zone - that limbo legal land where people are neither guilty nor innocent. As has been seen in the US, and in dictatorial regimes around the world, this is a zone occupied by doubt. When one person's innocence is another's guilt, the ruling comes down to who's making the rules, and what they're afraid of.
- What is the difference between "restriction" and "deprivation" of liberty? Is "physical" liberty (i.e. movement) so different from "mental" liberty (e.g. freedom of speech and freedom of religion)? Freedom of assembly may lie somewhere in the middle. Perhaps Clarke is concentrating on justifying the physical side, and simply clamping down on the mental side.
- New laws for liberty restriction covers all the people that the government merely suspects - at the moment, there's nothing that can be done without evidence (funny, that...). The old statistics of 700 arrested, 17 convicted comes back here, and the issue at stake is whether or not these 683 people, suspected of crime, should be free or "restricted", and on what evidence. As paranoia increases, this number is bound to increase exponentially, and there's no reason why the proportion of convictions will change.
What's certain is that the government is now clearly in the grey zone - that limbo legal land where people are neither guilty nor innocent. As has been seen in the US, and in dictatorial regimes around the world, this is a zone occupied by doubt. When one person's innocence is another's guilt, the ruling comes down to who's making the rules, and what they're afraid of.
Monday, February 28, 2005
Run away!
Blimey, it's gone all busy. Clarke is in retreat over the proposed superman powers he oh-so wants, even though the bid for judges rather than BatClarke lost, 253 votes to 267. He even admits... "I have come to the view that there is great merit in seeking as wide a consensus as is possible across Parliament." Can't think that's something old Blunky would have done... Good news, I suspect.
Meanwhile, it may be interesting to see in a few weeks what sentence Saajid Badat gets for not being a terrorist. Interesting, because the law is now firmly on the side of those wishing to convict people merely for planning attacks - if they change their mind, they're still guilty and liable to be locke dup for.. well, how long indeed? Hmm, IANAL. Are there similar precedents for, say, planning to commit murder, but not going through with it?
And is it just me, or are a fair proportion of (potential) terrorists intelligent and polite young men?
Meanwhile, it may be interesting to see in a few weeks what sentence Saajid Badat gets for not being a terrorist. Interesting, because the law is now firmly on the side of those wishing to convict people merely for planning attacks - if they change their mind, they're still guilty and liable to be locke dup for.. well, how long indeed? Hmm, IANAL. Are there similar precedents for, say, planning to commit murder, but not going through with it?
And is it just me, or are a fair proportion of (potential) terrorists intelligent and polite young men?
Suicide is annoying
Anti-Social Behaviour Orders! The cure for all ills!
In a fantastic victory for utilitarianist ASBOs, the Guardian reports that a suicidal woman has been issued with an ASBO to stop her from "going into rivers, canals or any open water in England and Wales", going onto train lines or hanging around on bridges. If she does any of these, she'll go to jail.
Phew, we're all safe now. Now I just need one to shut the baby next door up...
In a fantastic victory for utilitarianist ASBOs, the Guardian reports that a suicidal woman has been issued with an ASBO to stop her from "going into rivers, canals or any open water in England and Wales", going onto train lines or hanging around on bridges. If she does any of these, she'll go to jail.
Phew, we're all safe now. Now I just need one to shut the baby next door up...
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
The Emperor's new documents
Oops, missed this before...
[Clarke] "published 'briefing papers' about the international terrorist threat and the government's response.
Ex-government emergency planning chief Mike Grannatt said the papers combined information already on MI5's website with public threats from terrorist groups."
Does anyone know where you can get hold of these papers at all? Can't see any links from the Home Office site, BBC News or anywhere...
[Clarke] "published 'briefing papers' about the international terrorist threat and the government's response.
Ex-government emergency planning chief Mike Grannatt said the papers combined information already on MI5's website with public threats from terrorist groups."
Does anyone know where you can get hold of these papers at all? Can't see any links from the Home Office site, BBC News or anywhere...
The hypocrisy saga continues...
Unleashing his superman-like powers, Charles Clarke said: "Some believe that the absence in this country of a terrorist outrage like 9/11 or Madrid means that the terrorist threat has somehow passed us by or failed to materialise.
"That view is short-sighted, complacent, ignorant of the facts and potentially cavalier of the safety of this country."
And some believe that to chase terrorists without due discussion as to why they would want to target us is equally shortsighted. Some believe that merely casting people that disagree with our culture as "evil" is, perhaps, not such a good idea. To support the "destruction" of "terror" by wading into places and saying you know how to run a place better than the people that live there is questionable.
Perhaps this isn't Clarke's job. Maybe he doesn't care what happens in other countries - only what happens in this one, which may be fair. But I see a government that seems all too ready to lock its own people up to save face, rather than to consider the effect they're having on the world. I repeat myself - laws based on the fear of politicians are backwards laws that betray our backwards way of thinking.
"That view is short-sighted, complacent, ignorant of the facts and potentially cavalier of the safety of this country."
And some believe that to chase terrorists without due discussion as to why they would want to target us is equally shortsighted. Some believe that merely casting people that disagree with our culture as "evil" is, perhaps, not such a good idea. To support the "destruction" of "terror" by wading into places and saying you know how to run a place better than the people that live there is questionable.
Perhaps this isn't Clarke's job. Maybe he doesn't care what happens in other countries - only what happens in this one, which may be fair. But I see a government that seems all too ready to lock its own people up to save face, rather than to consider the effect they're having on the world. I repeat myself - laws based on the fear of politicians are backwards laws that betray our backwards way of thinking.
Holy future paranoia, home office man!
Well well, we are in a bit of a tizzy, aren't we? There are evildoers afoot, and if we don't come up with a way of sorting them all out by the 14th of March, *BOOM!* - we'll all be blown sky high! What is to be done?
Fortunately, Charles Clarke knows there's only one way to deal with terrorists, and that's by locking them up himself. Everyone will be able to wake up safe and happy on March 15th knowing that red-pants-ridden Charlie will be flying through the skies, swooping down to pick up anyone and everyone that looks, well, downright suspicious, eh? It's no wonder, with his superhuman powers of judgement and righteousnes, that he's so eager to get on with the job! Just such a shame that everyone else is jealous and wants to see a boring old judge do the job - judges can't even fly, for goodness' sake!
So the clock is ticking. Less than 3 weeks to draw up the blueprints for the future - but note, the next 20 days will properly reveal who's really in control of the country. Will Clarkey listen to democracy? Will the common people realise what the inter-party tiff really represents? Will Michael Howard be able to think up something before Charles does? Tune in next month - same terror-time, same terror-blogchannel*!
* Actually, this may change soon. Clarke is definitely living up to his predecessor's insultory nickname, and the ability to appear relevant and up-to-date is somewhat hindered by referring to someone that everyone's now forgotten ever existed. Aww, poor Blunky. He did so well.
Fortunately, Charles Clarke knows there's only one way to deal with terrorists, and that's by locking them up himself. Everyone will be able to wake up safe and happy on March 15th knowing that red-pants-ridden Charlie will be flying through the skies, swooping down to pick up anyone and everyone that looks, well, downright suspicious, eh? It's no wonder, with his superhuman powers of judgement and righteousnes, that he's so eager to get on with the job! Just such a shame that everyone else is jealous and wants to see a boring old judge do the job - judges can't even fly, for goodness' sake!
So the clock is ticking. Less than 3 weeks to draw up the blueprints for the future - but note, the next 20 days will properly reveal who's really in control of the country. Will Clarkey listen to democracy? Will the common people realise what the inter-party tiff really represents? Will Michael Howard be able to think up something before Charles does? Tune in next month - same terror-time, same terror-blogchannel*!
* Actually, this may change soon. Clarke is definitely living up to his predecessor's insultory nickname, and the ability to appear relevant and up-to-date is somewhat hindered by referring to someone that everyone's now forgotten ever existed. Aww, poor Blunky. He did so well.
Friday, February 04, 2005
Human Rights? What they?
Not sure if this came out a week ago, but I only just picked it up on publictechnology.net...
The Joint Committee on Human Rights has released its report on the Identity Cards Bill [summary], raising numerous (read "shedloads of") concerns around the privacy implications of the Register Scheme. PublicTechnology.net further summarises, but the main points are:
Much of it seems to be regarding the potential for further expansion, an observation I completely agree with. There are very few safeguards to ensure that the government itself handles data with any responsibility at all, and there doesn't seem to be any eagerness to address this issue of accountability.
The Committee's questions to Charles Clarke pulls few punches, offering insight and rationale that the government has sorely been lacking so far in its arguments. For instance:
"Requiring only those who hold driving licences or passports, and who apply to hold or renew them, to enter their details on the Register appears unlikely to provide an effective means of addressing any of the aims of the Bill." (Question 2)
It's going to be an interesting reply (the Committee request one by Monday 7th February) from the Home Office, one which I look forward to reading.
This is also really good material, from an extremely reputable source, to forward onto Ministers (hint, hint). What would be even better is an easy-to-read version (with relevant pointers to the original source) that gets the findings across really quickly. I wonder if a wiki or something could be used/useful for this...
The Joint Committee on Human Rights has released its report on the Identity Cards Bill [summary], raising numerous (read "shedloads of") concerns around the privacy implications of the Register Scheme. PublicTechnology.net further summarises, but the main points are:
- The extent of personal info being held is questionable, both in terms of scope and effectiveness
- Allowing information to be held in the database without the individual's knowledge/consent is questionable
- A system of "designated documents" would make the scheme "effectively compulsory" for certain (very large) groups
- Information "shared" from both public and private organisations to confirm the register's information may be too much
- "extensive disclosure of personal information on the Register to public bodies for a wide range of purposes"
Much of it seems to be regarding the potential for further expansion, an observation I completely agree with. There are very few safeguards to ensure that the government itself handles data with any responsibility at all, and there doesn't seem to be any eagerness to address this issue of accountability.
The Committee's questions to Charles Clarke pulls few punches, offering insight and rationale that the government has sorely been lacking so far in its arguments. For instance:
"Requiring only those who hold driving licences or passports, and who apply to hold or renew them, to enter their details on the Register appears unlikely to provide an effective means of addressing any of the aims of the Bill." (Question 2)
It's going to be an interesting reply (the Committee request one by Monday 7th February) from the Home Office, one which I look forward to reading.
This is also really good material, from an extremely reputable source, to forward onto Ministers (hint, hint). What would be even better is an easy-to-read version (with relevant pointers to the original source) that gets the findings across really quickly. I wonder if a wiki or something could be used/useful for this...
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
More terror backlash, and Freedom at the expense of the public
ePolitix reports that Labour could be weakening on terror laws. "The one thing I will not do as prime minister is engage in anything that puts the security of our country at risk," Blair told MPs. "That is absolutely paramount for me." Hmm, shame he didn't think of that before portraying himself as being constantly in bed with US policies then...
Also worth checkin out is spy.org.uk's FOIA request for OGC Gateway Reviews of the ID Cards scheme, as they've now been put off by 15 days - just enough to avoid giving out information until after the final debate of the bill. According to publictechnology.net, it's 1 of only 2 (out of over 4,000) requests to have the deadline extended. Coincidence? Government afraid? Make your own mind up.
Also worth checkin out is spy.org.uk's FOIA request for OGC Gateway Reviews of the ID Cards scheme, as they've now been put off by 15 days - just enough to avoid giving out information until after the final debate of the bill. According to publictechnology.net, it's 1 of only 2 (out of over 4,000) requests to have the deadline extended. Coincidence? Government afraid? Make your own mind up.
The backlash begins
The Lib Dems are opposing house arrests says the headline, although let's face it - the real issue here is Use of Evidence, as in there isn't any. Alas, I think this is going to be another of those issues that the public really don't care about, and so the government will get their way if no-one fights it.
Now, after reading Sarah Arnott's piece on ID Cards, I must admit to changing tactic slightly.
Up til now, the civil liberties aspect has always taken slightly more precedence over government incompetence. I would rather a stupid state than an all-powerful state. And fortunately, perhaps, my wish is true. It is, I think, plausible to assume foremost that the government is scared rather than incompetent - scared into making some dumb, paranoid moves that may then have the possible side-effect of sweeping aside civilities.
Any organisation that is led on by both fear (in the Home Office's case) and outright faith (in the Prime Minister's case) is on a very wrong footing, IMHO. Whitehall's lack of courage to think sensibly for a moment, coupled with a political structure in which admitting to making mistakes is considered heresy, has left us with a fussy-mother state rather than a nanny one.
On the up side, it may be easier to combat fear than malevolence...
On a different note, I'm still thinking of changing the blog's name (and putting a redirect in). Any suggestions? :)
Now, after reading Sarah Arnott's piece on ID Cards, I must admit to changing tactic slightly.
Up til now, the civil liberties aspect has always taken slightly more precedence over government incompetence. I would rather a stupid state than an all-powerful state. And fortunately, perhaps, my wish is true. It is, I think, plausible to assume foremost that the government is scared rather than incompetent - scared into making some dumb, paranoid moves that may then have the possible side-effect of sweeping aside civilities.
Any organisation that is led on by both fear (in the Home Office's case) and outright faith (in the Prime Minister's case) is on a very wrong footing, IMHO. Whitehall's lack of courage to think sensibly for a moment, coupled with a political structure in which admitting to making mistakes is considered heresy, has left us with a fussy-mother state rather than a nanny one.
On the up side, it may be easier to combat fear than malevolence...
On a different note, I'm still thinking of changing the blog's name (and putting a redirect in). Any suggestions? :)
Thursday, January 27, 2005
The Police are Ready
Talkin of reminders, here's one to highlight the extent to which the police stand to benefit from proposed identification schemes. Cards are still on the starting stretch, but the networks exist already to implement much of what people fear about an ID system:
Police to use roadside fingerprint technology if SOCA Bill is passed
"Suspects without sufficient identification will have to place their finger on the electronic device, which will link to records kept on the National Automated Fingerprint Identification System."
Exercise for the reader: Define "suspect".
Police to use roadside fingerprint technology if SOCA Bill is passed
"Suspects without sufficient identification will have to place their finger on the electronic device, which will link to records kept on the National Automated Fingerprint Identification System."
Exercise for the reader: Define "suspect".
"Interesting TImes"
It seems to be another of those weeks of great change, and any change is never bad change. At least the issues at stake are presently being thrust through the discussion millstone, and it seems to me to be better to have people thinking about it one way or the other than not thinking at all.
The Guardian leads with the Guantanamo Britons being sent home while the Beeb highlights Blair's defence of the new house arrest plans, saying:
"'[Terrorists] will cause death and destruction on an unlimited scale and they will and are trying to organise such terrorist activity in our own country. I just hope people get this in perspective.'"
Alas for him, I've already gained a much larger perspective - one greater than thinking that merely slamming anyone who could pose a possible threat in jail will work, ever. I feel it's perhaps time to remind myself, and anyone else that may have forgotten, that laws based on fear are laws that seek to punish, exclude and squash. While we continue to shout about avoiding the very real threats posed to us, we are simultaneously ignoring the very real causes and equally plausible solutions to them.
I have yet to work out what these new proposed anti-terrorist laws truly mean, but until our leaders begin to accept the true causes of terror (hint: "hatred of our freedom" no longer washes), I doubt that their "answers"will have any impact other than a draconian jailstate in which, yes, everyone will be safe, but also no - no global accountancy, no governmental transparency. We'll be safe asleep in our beds while the World burns outside.
The hypocrisy continues.
The Guardian leads with the Guantanamo Britons being sent home while the Beeb highlights Blair's defence of the new house arrest plans, saying:
"'[Terrorists] will cause death and destruction on an unlimited scale and they will and are trying to organise such terrorist activity in our own country. I just hope people get this in perspective.'"
Alas for him, I've already gained a much larger perspective - one greater than thinking that merely slamming anyone who could pose a possible threat in jail will work, ever. I feel it's perhaps time to remind myself, and anyone else that may have forgotten, that laws based on fear are laws that seek to punish, exclude and squash. While we continue to shout about avoiding the very real threats posed to us, we are simultaneously ignoring the very real causes and equally plausible solutions to them.
I have yet to work out what these new proposed anti-terrorist laws truly mean, but until our leaders begin to accept the true causes of terror (hint: "hatred of our freedom" no longer washes), I doubt that their "answers"will have any impact other than a draconian jailstate in which, yes, everyone will be safe, but also no - no global accountancy, no governmental transparency. We'll be safe asleep in our beds while the World burns outside.
The hypocrisy continues.
Sunday, January 23, 2005
The Home Office replies
Things are quiet of late still, mainly due to heavy workload and some other activities, but I have received a response from MP Des Browne, following my initial letter to my MP back in December.
I've only just transcribed it into electronic format (so apologies for any typos), but rest assured there are plenty of points to respond to in it, along with some interesting (to me) tidbits such as the definition of "serious crime" ("...is conducted by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose").
As usual, the Home Office tends to ignore any sensible point about the proposals, opting instead to submit back to me their own stock set of arguments as explained patiently to the media every time the issue arises. By the looks of it, the letter isn't a standard form one (which is heartening - I like having attention paid to me ;), but I wouldn't be surprised if there was some copying and pasting from a "standard response" document somewhere. The usual vaguaries are also abundant, for instance:
"Law enforcement agencies ... will be able to seek disclosure of information from the Register for specified purposes e.g. for the prevention or investigation of crime."
So when something is "specified", it's nice and broad then.
I will try and find some time to concoct a decent reply asap. It's nice to know that maybe maybe I have their ear for a change, too.
I've only just transcribed it into electronic format (so apologies for any typos), but rest assured there are plenty of points to respond to in it, along with some interesting (to me) tidbits such as the definition of "serious crime" ("...is conducted by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose").
As usual, the Home Office tends to ignore any sensible point about the proposals, opting instead to submit back to me their own stock set of arguments as explained patiently to the media every time the issue arises. By the looks of it, the letter isn't a standard form one (which is heartening - I like having attention paid to me ;), but I wouldn't be surprised if there was some copying and pasting from a "standard response" document somewhere. The usual vaguaries are also abundant, for instance:
"Law enforcement agencies ... will be able to seek disclosure of information from the Register for specified purposes e.g. for the prevention or investigation of crime."
So when something is "specified", it's nice and broad then.
I will try and find some time to concoct a decent reply asap. It's nice to know that maybe maybe I have their ear for a change, too.
Monday, January 17, 2005
Another one bites the dust
Pretty quiet recently, as 2005 kicks in without the media-happy face of Mr Blunkett to wake me up in the morning. Sigh. Don't be fooled though, nothing much is changing, and another Lawyer for terror detainees quits.
Thursday, January 06, 2005
Wednesday, January 05, 2005
Will *anyone* back ID cards?
Quick catch-up from last year - amongst the increasingly cautious over ID Cards are the
SNP and the
Citizens Advice Bureau. Both warn against trusting the government about their promises of what the scheme can deliver. I don't know - all this worry, yet still the bill went through all so easily... Politicians, eh?
The BBC are also having a field day as truckloads of documents get revealed under Freedom of Information. Apparently Labour dismissed ID cards in 1974, it turns out. Why? Despite a threat of terrorism from the IRA, they were deemed to be "extremely expensive and largely ineffective", as well as entertaining "the danger of being driven to more and more extreme measures involving unwarranted infringement of personal liberty."
The more things change, the more they stay the same...
SNP and the
Citizens Advice Bureau. Both warn against trusting the government about their promises of what the scheme can deliver. I don't know - all this worry, yet still the bill went through all so easily... Politicians, eh?
The BBC are also having a field day as truckloads of documents get revealed under Freedom of Information. Apparently Labour dismissed ID cards in 1974, it turns out. Why? Despite a threat of terrorism from the IRA, they were deemed to be "extremely expensive and largely ineffective", as well as entertaining "the danger of being driven to more and more extreme measures involving unwarranted infringement of personal liberty."
The more things change, the more they stay the same...
Tuesday, January 04, 2005
Blair names new security supremo
Welcome, all, to 2005. The year ahead promises to be an exciting, intriguing funfair-ride of great change.
Admittedly, this blog has been on a small hiatus over the last few festive weeks, but I trust that we're all back, relaxed and rested, and ready to stay vigilant and sceptical as we move forwards.
A small one to start off with... The head of the immigration service is to take over as "security and intelligence co-ordinator".
Oh, and don't forget that the Freedom of Information Act is now primed and ready.
Admittedly, this blog has been on a small hiatus over the last few festive weeks, but I trust that we're all back, relaxed and rested, and ready to stay vigilant and sceptical as we move forwards.
A small one to start off with... The head of the immigration service is to take over as "security and intelligence co-ordinator".
Oh, and don't forget that the Freedom of Information Act is now primed and ready.
Thursday, December 23, 2004
Delete... delete... delete...
The Freedom Of Information Act, due to come in next month, could be one of the most significant steps towards a truly transparent government (assuming it's not got loopholes aplenty). In a way, it's like an inversed effect of ID Cards - we, the public, actually get to find out what the people who run the country are actually doing.
Interesting, then, that apparently Whitehall's shredding of official documents has been "drastically stepped up" of late. E-mails are also being deleted in droves.
Now, I could stoop so low as to cite the liberally-sprinkled (as in "spread freely", not "spread by liberals") phrase, "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" in order to bring attention to the eyebrow-raising activities behind parliament's doors, but naturally that would be crass and probably somewhat hypocritical.
Alas, we may not ever get to see what many of those documents contained (assuming they've destroyed e-mail back-ups too), but hey, it's good to know all those faceless ones behind close doors are getting a bit jumpy. Got to keep them on their toes, eh?
[More information of the Freedom of Information Act]
Interesting, then, that apparently Whitehall's shredding of official documents has been "drastically stepped up" of late. E-mails are also being deleted in droves.
Now, I could stoop so low as to cite the liberally-sprinkled (as in "spread freely", not "spread by liberals") phrase, "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" in order to bring attention to the eyebrow-raising activities behind parliament's doors, but naturally that would be crass and probably somewhat hypocritical.
Alas, we may not ever get to see what many of those documents contained (assuming they've destroyed e-mail back-ups too), but hey, it's good to know all those faceless ones behind close doors are getting a bit jumpy. Got to keep them on their toes, eh?
[More information of the Freedom of Information Act]
Monday, December 20, 2004
Charles Clarke is an arse
Arrgh! Charles Clarke is an arse! From his commentary in the Times today:
"ID cards will potentially make a difference to any area of everyday life where you already have to prove your identity — such as opening a bank account, going abroad on holiday, claiming a benefit, buying goods on credit and renting a video."
So once they have in place a system to record every transaction your ID card is used for, they're quite eager to push it out to every single aspect of life? How is that not an Orwellian state? Oh wait, I have to hide this blog entry while the Police Helicopter buzzes overhead (fortunately the CCTV cameras only scan the street outside). OK, continue...
"I claim that the ID Cards Bill that I am introducing today is a profoundly civil libertarian measure because it promotes the most fundamental civil liberty in our society, which is the right to live free from crime and fear."
OK, someone please explain to me how having an ID card will prevent the people down the road jumping on cars, spraypainting every wall in sight and smashing shop windows. I'm really confused.
Clarke is an arse!
Clarke is an arse!
Clarke is an arse!
"ID cards will potentially make a difference to any area of everyday life where you already have to prove your identity — such as opening a bank account, going abroad on holiday, claiming a benefit, buying goods on credit and renting a video."
So once they have in place a system to record every transaction your ID card is used for, they're quite eager to push it out to every single aspect of life? How is that not an Orwellian state? Oh wait, I have to hide this blog entry while the Police Helicopter buzzes overhead (fortunately the CCTV cameras only scan the street outside). OK, continue...
"I claim that the ID Cards Bill that I am introducing today is a profoundly civil libertarian measure because it promotes the most fundamental civil liberty in our society, which is the right to live free from crime and fear."
OK, someone please explain to me how having an ID card will prevent the people down the road jumping on cars, spraypainting every wall in sight and smashing shop windows. I'm really confused.
Clarke is an arse!
Clarke is an arse!
Clarke is an arse!
Shields up
10pm this evening sees the ID Bill getting its second reading, and "only around 30 Labour MPs are expected to vote against the government". Des Browne speaking on "Today" (listen via BBC) apparently dismisses critics' worries about the system - worries such as those I put to my MP. Dismissal of argument seems to be a common tactic these days, and one that continues to make me even less inclined to trust the "democracy" that runs our lives. Mark Oaten also persists with the somewhat-ancient and mostly-debunked 80% figure in favour of the scheme, despite his adversity. Ho hum.
As expected after the storm, all eyes are off the subject, with even the Register allocating more space to Blunkett's comeback than to the secretness of the ID System's effect on Human Rights (see original Guardian article).
Yup, we are about to enter an age when the government (a small 'g', until such time when I trust it with a capital again) have more non-transparent control over us than probably ever before - a direct result of the ubiquitous nature of technology, and the readiness of a nation's majority to "think" purely of themselves. If ever there was a year of the Sheeple, 2005 is it.
As expected after the storm, all eyes are off the subject, with even the Register allocating more space to Blunkett's comeback than to the secretness of the ID System's effect on Human Rights (see original Guardian article).
Yup, we are about to enter an age when the government (a small 'g', until such time when I trust it with a capital again) have more non-transparent control over us than probably ever before - a direct result of the ubiquitous nature of technology, and the readiness of a nation's majority to "think" purely of themselves. If ever there was a year of the Sheeple, 2005 is it.
Friday, December 17, 2004
Fine to be rowdy.
Another instance of how the "serious" thinking amongst the struggling elite is paling into insignificance compared to the mighty will of Social Cohesion:
Drunken revellers face 80 quid fines
Obviously this has nothing to do with our nation's dependency on alcohol or low self esteem. No. OK, I understand that short-term measures may be taken for short-term fixes (such as the Christmas period), but dear Home Office, couldn't you please look at the serious causes of problems in this country, rather than merely upping the ante for those who do offend, just like you're upping the fines for rowdy drunken misbehaviour next week?
Here's the naked truth: in a generation so far removed from politics, morals are dictated all the more by the social norm - a norm that the government no longer controls. In other words, the link between government policy and national behaviour has been severed, a state that will continue to worsen as long as we truly believe that increased punishment an effective solution. The primary chord between the elected and the electorate is fast becoming the flashing lights and flourescent jackets of the police force, simply because we have no idea how to teach people what it is to be kind. By the time our grandchildren arrive, our schools will be nothing but prisons, and our high streets under armed guard.
This is the future so long as we carry on being afraid.
Drunken revellers face 80 quid fines
Obviously this has nothing to do with our nation's dependency on alcohol or low self esteem. No. OK, I understand that short-term measures may be taken for short-term fixes (such as the Christmas period), but dear Home Office, couldn't you please look at the serious causes of problems in this country, rather than merely upping the ante for those who do offend, just like you're upping the fines for rowdy drunken misbehaviour next week?
Here's the naked truth: in a generation so far removed from politics, morals are dictated all the more by the social norm - a norm that the government no longer controls. In other words, the link between government policy and national behaviour has been severed, a state that will continue to worsen as long as we truly believe that increased punishment an effective solution. The primary chord between the elected and the electorate is fast becoming the flashing lights and flourescent jackets of the police force, simply because we have no idea how to teach people what it is to be kind. By the time our grandchildren arrive, our schools will be nothing but prisons, and our high streets under armed guard.
This is the future so long as we carry on being afraid.
Thursday, December 16, 2004
Yay, I'm not a fairy!
Charles presses on with ID Cards, but admits he "certainly don't consider civil liberties as airy-fairy ... [they are] very important and fundamental."
Ooh, gives me a warm, fluffy feeling inside. Especially when he also mentions that "how the scheme [is] executed [will be] a matter of debate." Too right. Let's open this thing up wide.
Also BBC coverage.
Ooh, gives me a warm, fluffy feeling inside. Especially when he also mentions that "how the scheme [is] executed [will be] a matter of debate." Too right. Let's open this thing up wide.
Also BBC coverage.
Terror detainees win Lords appeal
For those wanting to chase Blunkett out the door, the BBC has comprehensive coverage.
In the meantime, there are more important, and just as (if not more) exciting things happening elsewhere - Law Lords have ruled that detaining foreign terrorism suspects without trial breaks human rights laws, by an eight to one majority. This isn't some controversial, in-the-balance issue - this is near-unanimous. This is a huge torpedo through the hulls of the Home Office's fear-run strategy.
Does the tide really change so quickly? How far does it go?
In the meantime, there are more important, and just as (if not more) exciting things happening elsewhere - Law Lords have ruled that detaining foreign terrorism suspects without trial breaks human rights laws, by an eight to one majority. This isn't some controversial, in-the-balance issue - this is near-unanimous. This is a huge torpedo through the hulls of the Home Office's fear-run strategy.
Does the tide really change so quickly? How far does it go?
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
This blog *is* inaptly named.
Blunkett quits.
TBH, I'm quite stunned. Many people, me included, weren't expecting that in the least. Looks like Charles Clarke is rumoured to replace him.
I must say, I'm not overly pleased. While, on the one hand I'm not the greatest supporter of Mr Blunkett and his policies (as you may have guessed), I would have much preferred to see him go as a result of arguments over his direction and structure of these policies, rather than a tabloid-fought smear campaign around his alleged misdemeanours. Abuse of power they may perhaps be, but his arrogance - the same arrogance that secured his fall - also served as a rallying point against the ID scheme, against ASBOs, and against everything else the Home Office cooks up. These schemes I doubt will go away, and will press on despite the upset in leadership. If anything, the furore has and will continue to detract from the more important (again, IMHO) issues we face.
The workings of government, and in particular the HO, can appear mysterious, shadowy, dubious and full of wonder to a public onlooker such as myself. I remain curious as to how this will affect the government's approach over the next few weeks - will the ID Bill be sneaked through while eyes are averted, or puton hold and re-assessed under new speculation?
The issue of this site's name is also to be considered, but all in good time. All in good time.
Update: The Beeb has his resignation speech in full. While I am inclined to semi-believe his claims that he did nothing wrong, I'm also intently aware of the "art of implying" that seems to permeate many hierarchies - governmental and corporate alike - whereby intent can be assumed from one person to another, or from one level to another. Just as my girlfriend knows what Christmas presents I will like without me saying anything, so we face such inference amongst the ranks of the controlling forces. Maybe it is no longer good enough to find evidence to prove something is true. Bear this in mind when reading DB's speech.
TBH, I'm quite stunned. Many people, me included, weren't expecting that in the least. Looks like Charles Clarke is rumoured to replace him.
I must say, I'm not overly pleased. While, on the one hand I'm not the greatest supporter of Mr Blunkett and his policies (as you may have guessed), I would have much preferred to see him go as a result of arguments over his direction and structure of these policies, rather than a tabloid-fought smear campaign around his alleged misdemeanours. Abuse of power they may perhaps be, but his arrogance - the same arrogance that secured his fall - also served as a rallying point against the ID scheme, against ASBOs, and against everything else the Home Office cooks up. These schemes I doubt will go away, and will press on despite the upset in leadership. If anything, the furore has and will continue to detract from the more important (again, IMHO) issues we face.
The workings of government, and in particular the HO, can appear mysterious, shadowy, dubious and full of wonder to a public onlooker such as myself. I remain curious as to how this will affect the government's approach over the next few weeks - will the ID Bill be sneaked through while eyes are averted, or puton hold and re-assessed under new speculation?
The issue of this site's name is also to be considered, but all in good time. All in good time.
Update: The Beeb has his resignation speech in full. While I am inclined to semi-believe his claims that he did nothing wrong, I'm also intently aware of the "art of implying" that seems to permeate many hierarchies - governmental and corporate alike - whereby intent can be assumed from one person to another, or from one level to another. Just as my girlfriend knows what Christmas presents I will like without me saying anything, so we face such inference amongst the ranks of the controlling forces. Maybe it is no longer good enough to find evidence to prove something is true. Bear this in mind when reading DB's speech.
Tuesday, December 14, 2004
Killer Kites
The Reg has a good article about stats recently reported by DB (theyworkforyou.com links here and here) on the use of anti-terrorist laws against "armed anarchists" at RAF Fairford in 2003 - the willingness of the Home Office to use these laws this much should highlight just how stringent (or not) the labelling of "terrorism" by the Government really is.
Apparently "2,254 stop-searches had been conducted" in the vicinity of Fairford from 6 March to 27 April 2003, and "...police took items from 28 people as a result of searches that were conducted under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. These included a kite, white powder, controlled drugs, cameras and camera equipment, and a scanner." Blunkett also backs down on his old claims that "cudgels and swords" were seized.
Meanwhile the Tories are in favour of ID Cards, even if they're not completely convinced at all, internally...
Apparently "2,254 stop-searches had been conducted" in the vicinity of Fairford from 6 March to 27 April 2003, and "...police took items from 28 people as a result of searches that were conducted under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. These included a kite, white powder, controlled drugs, cameras and camera equipment, and a scanner." Blunkett also backs down on his old claims that "cudgels and swords" were seized.
Meanwhile the Tories are in favour of ID Cards, even if they're not completely convinced at all, internally...
Wednesday, December 08, 2004
The great awakening
(Oops. This turned into a rant...)
The Reg reports on a survey from think tank "Reform" that "claims 81 per cent of the British public favour the introduction of compulsory ID cards, with 29 per cent thinking it would be a very good idea, and 52 per cent a good idea." More detailed stats in the article, or possibly in the survey itself, although the site seems inaccessible at the moment.
The Reg puts this imbalance down, mainly, to an uninformed public - a feasible attribution, IMHO (and plausibly a result of a "marketing-led society" in which quantity counts while facts are discarded). Much of it also ties in with the fact that for many, politics just isn't an interest. Unfortunately, as has been proved over the last few years, electorate apathy does lead to things the electorate really don't want, which is all the more reason to think that when the government quote statistics such as these, what they actually mean is "80% of people really don't care, so we're going to do it".
This is the problem we face - our supposed democracy is based on numbers, but the numbers we're using just don't add up, or justify the system. As we keep seeing, in order to influence the system, we must influence the numbers - a nigh-on impossible task when the biggest broadcast systems are mostly out-of-reach except for established media and political channels. Even more difficult when the numbers cited by those behind plans can pick and choose poll results selectively. Why? Again, because no-one really cares.
Admittedly, that's not the end of the story. There's always influence from the minority, for instance. But what's broken is the justification loop - the feedback from those making the final decisions to those who are interested enough to find out the relevant information. In other words, the Government is actively discouraging the people it should be seeking to encourage, by pushing stats obtained from the apathetic onto the interested, in order to avoid real discussion and real participation. It's no wonder that people have lost interest when all they get if they do become interested is one big shake of the head.
Be prepared. Some day the population may wake up to what our Government are doing, under the guise of "their backing". It's not enough to march for a day, banging drums once something's gone away from your liking and out of your control - we need daily active participation, and a way to make the decisions for the future to be relevant today. Until then, the Government can pretty much stomp whatever legislation they want all over us, including - alas - a nationwide tracking system. And all those with "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" will wonder what the hell they were doing.
The Reg reports on a survey from think tank "Reform" that "claims 81 per cent of the British public favour the introduction of compulsory ID cards, with 29 per cent thinking it would be a very good idea, and 52 per cent a good idea." More detailed stats in the article, or possibly in the survey itself, although the site seems inaccessible at the moment.
The Reg puts this imbalance down, mainly, to an uninformed public - a feasible attribution, IMHO (and plausibly a result of a "marketing-led society" in which quantity counts while facts are discarded). Much of it also ties in with the fact that for many, politics just isn't an interest. Unfortunately, as has been proved over the last few years, electorate apathy does lead to things the electorate really don't want, which is all the more reason to think that when the government quote statistics such as these, what they actually mean is "80% of people really don't care, so we're going to do it".
This is the problem we face - our supposed democracy is based on numbers, but the numbers we're using just don't add up, or justify the system. As we keep seeing, in order to influence the system, we must influence the numbers - a nigh-on impossible task when the biggest broadcast systems are mostly out-of-reach except for established media and political channels. Even more difficult when the numbers cited by those behind plans can pick and choose poll results selectively. Why? Again, because no-one really cares.
Admittedly, that's not the end of the story. There's always influence from the minority, for instance. But what's broken is the justification loop - the feedback from those making the final decisions to those who are interested enough to find out the relevant information. In other words, the Government is actively discouraging the people it should be seeking to encourage, by pushing stats obtained from the apathetic onto the interested, in order to avoid real discussion and real participation. It's no wonder that people have lost interest when all they get if they do become interested is one big shake of the head.
Be prepared. Some day the population may wake up to what our Government are doing, under the guise of "their backing". It's not enough to march for a day, banging drums once something's gone away from your liking and out of your control - we need daily active participation, and a way to make the decisions for the future to be relevant today. Until then, the Government can pretty much stomp whatever legislation they want all over us, including - alas - a nationwide tracking system. And all those with "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" will wonder what the hell they were doing.
Monday, December 06, 2004
Bad news is still news.
The hullaballo around Blunketty drags on apace, and while I still refuse to lower myself to the witch-burning spectacles devoured by so much of the media, it does seem to be reaching such fervour that I am now wondering how the whole shenanigans affects the limping plight of the ID Cards Bill.
Think of it this way, for instance. Blunkett, as the head spokesperson for the scheme, also represents to some extent the "human" side of it - that is to say, in order for people to trust the system, they must trust the people pushing for the system. In his role as Home Secretary, the Blunketty one must therefore come across as 2 things, most of all: 1) firm, but also 2) trustworthy. These aspects represent the yin and the yang of the Home Office's relation with the people, a cause and effect amplified greatly by the fickleness of the tabloid-reading masses.*
But now, this moral upstanding is challenged, and doesn't seem to be going away as quickly as anyone might have hoped (Blunkett for obvious reasons, the media who want to get back to the next reality TV series, and me because it's clouding the whole ID thing and really is quite boring). The questions on my lips are: Are the public so fickle as to equate the failings of our Dave with the trustworthiness of the ID system, or indeed politics in general (which already suffers a fair amount of suspicion anyway, despite what Blunkett would decry)? And is the ubiquity of same Dave within the news a real threat to the publicity of the various pro- and anti-ID Card movements?
Bear in mind that, as the government are so eager to push the Bill through the Houses as quickly as possible, with as little scrupulous inspection as possible, the most likely way the Bill is going to get repealed is through a large amount of public pressure. The ability to get people interested in the issue will depend partly on if they are sick of hearing about the same people on a daily basis. Or, at least, their initial reception to the matter may depend on this to some extent, which counts for a fair bit.
So, I like to see this circus as a double-edged sword. On the one hand, the amount of column inches being generated may serve to divert attention away from the bigger, longer-term efforts that Mr B is involved in (although not necessarily the sole dependency in), and obscure the nation's lust for morals. On the other hand, it may be that given the right opportunity, whichever outcome we see can be turned to an advantage. For instance, it may be easier to attract attention to the other efforts of David in the wake and lull of any further enquiries, and to the further "transgressions" offered in the name of humanity. Or if, somehow, the Secretary does (astoundingly) offer his resignation, then perhaps it makes it all the easier to draw some light on the projects he is currently "overseeing" (at least media-wise).
The lesson here is not that we should be baying for Blunkett's blood, or even that we should be ignoring the ongoing furore completely. It is that we should realise the spotlights are focused on our corner, and that even the media can be manipulated to our advantage if done right. It's an ill wind, but it may yet turn out to be blowing the right way.
* The amount of apathy within the general population towards DB at this point is, of course, questionable. One suspects that the media and the politicians alike will do anything to make politics more interesting.
Think of it this way, for instance. Blunkett, as the head spokesperson for the scheme, also represents to some extent the "human" side of it - that is to say, in order for people to trust the system, they must trust the people pushing for the system. In his role as Home Secretary, the Blunketty one must therefore come across as 2 things, most of all: 1) firm, but also 2) trustworthy. These aspects represent the yin and the yang of the Home Office's relation with the people, a cause and effect amplified greatly by the fickleness of the tabloid-reading masses.*
But now, this moral upstanding is challenged, and doesn't seem to be going away as quickly as anyone might have hoped (Blunkett for obvious reasons, the media who want to get back to the next reality TV series, and me because it's clouding the whole ID thing and really is quite boring). The questions on my lips are: Are the public so fickle as to equate the failings of our Dave with the trustworthiness of the ID system, or indeed politics in general (which already suffers a fair amount of suspicion anyway, despite what Blunkett would decry)? And is the ubiquity of same Dave within the news a real threat to the publicity of the various pro- and anti-ID Card movements?
Bear in mind that, as the government are so eager to push the Bill through the Houses as quickly as possible, with as little scrupulous inspection as possible, the most likely way the Bill is going to get repealed is through a large amount of public pressure. The ability to get people interested in the issue will depend partly on if they are sick of hearing about the same people on a daily basis. Or, at least, their initial reception to the matter may depend on this to some extent, which counts for a fair bit.
So, I like to see this circus as a double-edged sword. On the one hand, the amount of column inches being generated may serve to divert attention away from the bigger, longer-term efforts that Mr B is involved in (although not necessarily the sole dependency in), and obscure the nation's lust for morals. On the other hand, it may be that given the right opportunity, whichever outcome we see can be turned to an advantage. For instance, it may be easier to attract attention to the other efforts of David in the wake and lull of any further enquiries, and to the further "transgressions" offered in the name of humanity. Or if, somehow, the Secretary does (astoundingly) offer his resignation, then perhaps it makes it all the easier to draw some light on the projects he is currently "overseeing" (at least media-wise).
The lesson here is not that we should be baying for Blunkett's blood, or even that we should be ignoring the ongoing furore completely. It is that we should realise the spotlights are focused on our corner, and that even the media can be manipulated to our advantage if done right. It's an ill wind, but it may yet turn out to be blowing the right way.
* The amount of apathy within the general population towards DB at this point is, of course, questionable. One suspects that the media and the politicians alike will do anything to make politics more interesting.
Saturday, December 04, 2004
The Business' Point of View
ID cards will hit business, watchdog warns, with some excellent generic quotes:
"The first question we ask when assessing the quality of regulatory proposals is 'what is the objective of the legislation?' Well, the objective of the ID cards is still not clear. It appears to have four or five different ones. And where the scope or intention of the legislation is not clear, then regulatory creep is likely to follow."
Also, why voluntary may mean compulsory - rest assured that there are probably plenty of other situations where the (voluntary) NIR will introduce "unvoidable iplementations" nuder the guise of efficiency and/or security.
"The first question we ask when assessing the quality of regulatory proposals is 'what is the objective of the legislation?' Well, the objective of the ID cards is still not clear. It appears to have four or five different ones. And where the scope or intention of the legislation is not clear, then regulatory creep is likely to follow."
Also, why voluntary may mean compulsory - rest assured that there are probably plenty of other situations where the (voluntary) NIR will introduce "unvoidable iplementations" nuder the guise of efficiency and/or security.
Thursday, December 02, 2004
Hi
A swift welcome to London News Review readers. If you were misled by the blog's name, and were expecting a picture of David Blunkett's face pasted onto a large person's naked bottom, then I apologise - there's none of that smut here. Yet.
If, on the other hand, you're interested in reading about what an ID scheme in the UK may or may not mean to you (seeing as you'll be forced into it eventually), and what you stand to gain or lose for your15 30 however-many pounds then please, read on...
If, on the other hand, you're interested in reading about what an ID scheme in the UK may or may not mean to you (seeing as you'll be forced into it eventually), and what you stand to gain or lose for your
Reg round-up
Looks like the government are trying to rustle up some more "authoritative" statistics on the public opinion of ID Cards, through the usual under-informedmarketing ploys, and misleading questions such as "Do you welcome plans to tackle organised crime, illegal immigration, benefit fraud and national security through the introduction of ID cards?". Anyone with more info on the rest of the questions sent out, please let me know... (No clues as to how they selected the questionnaire recipients, either...)
Meanwhile, a united front is being adopted by the HO, with Des Browne seemingly giving exactly the same points as Mr Blunkett made a few weeks ago, in particular the stand in opinion that ID Cards are not meant as a "panacea" for terrorism, and they never said they were.
Also worth a read are reports on various government IT systems falling over, and the readers' letters on the same subject. Here's hoping they learn their lesson - don't fancy being denied urgent NHS treatment because the "computer's gone down"...
Meanwhile, a united front is being adopted by the HO, with Des Browne seemingly giving exactly the same points as Mr Blunkett made a few weeks ago, in particular the stand in opinion that ID Cards are not meant as a "panacea" for terrorism, and they never said they were.
Also worth a read are reports on various government IT systems falling over, and the readers' letters on the same subject. Here's hoping they learn their lesson - don't fancy being denied urgent NHS treatment because the "computer's gone down"...
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
A matter of perspective
You heard it here first... [David Blunkett's] spokesman added: 'Our view is that people are innocent until proved guilty, not the other way around. Which is why the vast majority of the population - those who genuinely don't have anything to fear - will soon be formally treated as suspect, with their innocence to be prove. Furthermore, once cards are compulsory, you will be guilty if you don't have the means to prove it, regardless of if you're actually a danger or not.
Personally, I trust Mr Blunkett about as much as he trusts me.
Personally, I trust Mr Blunkett about as much as he trusts me.
Identity Cards Bill - First Impressions
I've spent the evening reading through the ID Cards Bill and taking some notes, but haven't the energy to write them up or take it all in properly just yet.
Overall impressions of the Bill are that my fears are grounded in reality. The Bill makes many, many provisions for access to the Register's information by those in power, and there don't seem to be many (if any) specifications as to what level of access is acceptable and what's not. The closest it gets to making the government accountable is a mention of the Intelligence Service Commisioner (section 26) who will be responsible for reviewing how the intelligence services are using the Register, but in extremely scant detail. Given that the individual is not told when one of these services requests and gets their information, and that the NIS Commissioner's reports can be freely censored in the name of national security, I have no faith at all in just what my information is really being used for.
In addition to all this, there are also a hell of a lot of uses of the phrase "The Secretary of State may...", giving the whole thing a definite air of the open-ended, top-down legislation I've come to expect. There really is very little in the way of ensuring efficient data flow while encouraging me to trust the government.
Hopefully some time over the next few days I can produce something with the main points, and maybe a bit of analysis.
In the meantime, an important (and relatively straight-forward) bit of reading is Schedule 1 - Information that may be recorded in the Register. While it may allay some fears that things such as religion, marital status, et al would be tracked directly under a scheme, it also makes it clear that this is very much a ID-encapsulation scheme, providing facilities to link to any other piece of identifying documentation.
There also seems to be some extra means to gather information about that documentation, e.g. "the date of expiry or period of validity of a document" as recorded in Section 4.
Much of it is also to do with the history of your ID details - when things were changed, when details were checked, etc. Plus there's the curious "password" field, that I thought we were perhaps supposed to do away with once we had new-age bio-technology. Apparently not...
Overall impressions of the Bill are that my fears are grounded in reality. The Bill makes many, many provisions for access to the Register's information by those in power, and there don't seem to be many (if any) specifications as to what level of access is acceptable and what's not. The closest it gets to making the government accountable is a mention of the Intelligence Service Commisioner (section 26) who will be responsible for reviewing how the intelligence services are using the Register, but in extremely scant detail. Given that the individual is not told when one of these services requests and gets their information, and that the NIS Commissioner's reports can be freely censored in the name of national security, I have no faith at all in just what my information is really being used for.
In addition to all this, there are also a hell of a lot of uses of the phrase "The Secretary of State may...", giving the whole thing a definite air of the open-ended, top-down legislation I've come to expect. There really is very little in the way of ensuring efficient data flow while encouraging me to trust the government.
Hopefully some time over the next few days I can produce something with the main points, and maybe a bit of analysis.
In the meantime, an important (and relatively straight-forward) bit of reading is Schedule 1 - Information that may be recorded in the Register. While it may allay some fears that things such as religion, marital status, et al would be tracked directly under a scheme, it also makes it clear that this is very much a ID-encapsulation scheme, providing facilities to link to any other piece of identifying documentation.
There also seems to be some extra means to gather information about that documentation, e.g. "the date of expiry or period of validity of a document" as recorded in Section 4.
Much of it is also to do with the history of your ID details - when things were changed, when details were checked, etc. Plus there's the curious "password" field, that I thought we were perhaps supposed to do away with once we had new-age bio-technology. Apparently not...
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
Column inches
Is it just me that gets slightly depressed to see Blunkett's alleged-perk-slipping intricacies generating numerous more front-page headlines than the steamrolling progress of our new identification system?
Maybe getting more politicians into the Big Brother house would be a good idea after all... ;)
Maybe getting more politicians into the Big Brother house would be a good idea after all... ;)
Publication a-gogo!
Well, the Identity Cards Bill is out - you can download it here (along with explanatory notes too).
PublicTechnology.net has the "press release", for want of a better name. It also has a bunch of quotes from the Home Office including the following changes, as a result of feedback (with my comments in non-bold):
More to come...
PublicTechnology.net has the "press release", for want of a better name. It also has a bunch of quotes from the Home Office including the following changes, as a result of feedback (with my comments in non-bold):
- to extend the remit of the National Identity Scheme Commissioner to cover oversight of the whole scheme, not just issues relating to provision of information from the Register
- to remove the bar to an individual's information contained in the access records of the Register being made available to that registered individual
Which sounds good... although the wording seems quite specific, and I intend to check what information being stored elsewhere about me I still won't have access to. - to extend the prohibition on requirements to produce identity cards for services so that neither production of an ID card nor a check would be lawful before Parliament agreed the necessary regulations. The absolute prohibition on making it compulsory to carry a card at all times remains
Hang on, give me a moment to decipher that one... Basically, there are now less scenarios where it would be legal to demand an ID check, at least before the government have decided it would be ok. Will check under what scenarios such a check is still ok, though. Oh, and you won't have to carry a card all the time. - to amend the false documents offence in the Bill so that it does not include those who knowingly use false documentation to enter the UK to apply for asylum.
The meaning of this depends on what the "false documents offence" entails... Looks like it's time to do some bedtime reading.
More to come...
Monday, November 29, 2004
An example, exploded.
Blair presses case for ID cards: "They will help protect civil liberties, not erode them, because people will be able to produce their own identification."
This really highlights the inverted state we find ourselves arrived at, in our modern reminiscence for panoptic panacea - ID Cards are a libertarian boon, as they represent a technically-certified method to prove that we are are who we say we are.
On the surface, this is maybe a plausible pro for the scheme. But if we stop and think a moment, and flip it on its head, we see the true, slithering nature of it. Ask yourself this: If you've done nothing wrong, why should you have to prove it?
This is an important point in the debate, and one we must constantly remind ourselves of. Under an ID scheme, we are no longer considered innocent, until proven guilty. Under the new regime, we are constantly considered suspect, unless we can somehow prove otherwise. Proof, in this case, comes from the biometric labs, but is refracted through a hundred layers of kaleidoscopic government layers.
The key thing, the tour de force, is that having an ID card would only be beneficial to your civil liberties under an ID scheme. And up until the point of display, you effectively have no right to be trusted by the government - that aging hierarchy put in place for our benefit, remember. You are to be eyed suspiciously, watched from afar and treated with brutish apathy. Under an ID scheme, your ability to be free is no longer inherent in your existence as a human being, but coupled savagely with a piece of plastic and the myriad tables of data deep within government storage.
Who do you trust? Who trusts you?
This really highlights the inverted state we find ourselves arrived at, in our modern reminiscence for panoptic panacea - ID Cards are a libertarian boon, as they represent a technically-certified method to prove that we are are who we say we are.
On the surface, this is maybe a plausible pro for the scheme. But if we stop and think a moment, and flip it on its head, we see the true, slithering nature of it. Ask yourself this: If you've done nothing wrong, why should you have to prove it?
This is an important point in the debate, and one we must constantly remind ourselves of. Under an ID scheme, we are no longer considered innocent, until proven guilty. Under the new regime, we are constantly considered suspect, unless we can somehow prove otherwise. Proof, in this case, comes from the biometric labs, but is refracted through a hundred layers of kaleidoscopic government layers.
The key thing, the tour de force, is that having an ID card would only be beneficial to your civil liberties under an ID scheme. And up until the point of display, you effectively have no right to be trusted by the government - that aging hierarchy put in place for our benefit, remember. You are to be eyed suspiciously, watched from afar and treated with brutish apathy. Under an ID scheme, your ability to be free is no longer inherent in your existence as a human being, but coupled savagely with a piece of plastic and the myriad tables of data deep within government storage.
Who do you trust? Who trusts you?
Sunday, November 28, 2004
Media Appearances
Catching up with some of Dave's recent appearances on TV and radio...
Spy Blog has a transcript of Blunkett with Jonathan Dimbleby from November 21st, in 4 main sections.
On the 25th (last Thursday), Blunkett also popped up on Radio 4's Today programme. Thanks to the wonders of the modern age, you can download it as an audio file. (4.9MB, Mono Ogg Vorbis format)
Enjoy.
Spy Blog has a transcript of Blunkett with Jonathan Dimbleby from November 21st, in 4 main sections.
On the 25th (last Thursday), Blunkett also popped up on Radio 4's Today programme. Thanks to the wonders of the modern age, you can download it as an audio file. (4.9MB, Mono Ogg Vorbis format)
Enjoy.
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
"Is the UK safer under Labour?"...
... asks the BBC in response to Peter Hain's comments. Bearing in mind that the comments "reflect the balance of opinion we have received so far", but also that such commenting is self-selecting, it's kind of impressive to note that - currently - the comments are about 17-to-1 decidely opposed to ID Cards and the UK foreign policy.
Remember to ask yourself, what is security? If I threaten to attack you unless you "pay" me 50 quid, and you hand it over, does that then make you more secure? (Hey, it works for the Mafia in all them films...)
Are we more secure just by building ever larger walls around ourselves, whilst letting our attitude towards the rest of the world continue to be one of imperialist aggression?
Remember to ask yourself, what is security? If I threaten to attack you unless you "pay" me 50 quid, and you hand it over, does that then make you more secure? (Hey, it works for the Mafia in all them films...)
Are we more secure just by building ever larger walls around ourselves, whilst letting our attitude towards the rest of the world continue to be one of imperialist aggression?
My Return to the Madhouse
Honestly, I go away for a couple of days, the Queen does some yadda yadda, and all Hell breaks loose. Can't I leave you lot alone for just a little while?
Anyway, to keep up to date, a quick scan throws up this equally-quick summary:
I also notice that Liberty have noticed that Labor have a page to add your support for ID Cards. But why bother, if they know they're going to do it anyway and damn the rest of you? I also like the way they want to get the Tories backing the card, but keep them way out of power. Keep your friends close...
Anyway, to keep up to date, a quick scan throws up this equally-quick summary:
- Home Office to press ahead with ID cards via ePolitix. Looks like the Labour Party are going to strong-arm it through government like they're doing with every other piece of even-vaguely controversial legislation - sans dicussion, plenty of PR. Welcome to the land of neo-democracy.
- Kennedy blasts 'neo-con' Blunkett, also via ePolitix.
- And Blair denies terror hype claims, of course. [BBC] Well he would, wouldn't he? He's got no reverse gear (just like one of those old Bubble Cars. Or a motorbike... No, stick with the Bubble Car analogy after all.)
I also notice that Liberty have noticed that Labor have a page to add your support for ID Cards. But why bother, if they know they're going to do it anyway and damn the rest of you? I also like the way they want to get the Tories backing the card, but keep them way out of power. Keep your friends close...
Friday, November 19, 2004
Fear and loyalty.
A couple of BBC articles to note...
Following Blunkett's concern over supermarket loyalty cards, there's a more in-depth follow-up on just how much they do invade our privacy. While they note that they currently only target particular demographics on a broad basis (e.g. "women aged 20 to 30"), I see no reason why, given cheap enough technology, they wouldn't extend this to target individuals. With the right blend of time and motivation, this isn't so unfeasible. But see previous posts as to why loyalty cards are different to ID cards.
Secondly, Charles Kennedy is kicking back against terrorism as an excuse. Good for him, although the image caption leaves the details out, I notice. Turns out it's actually quite easy to frighten people into doing whatever you want them to do, once they're completely dependent on you for how they live.
Following Blunkett's concern over supermarket loyalty cards, there's a more in-depth follow-up on just how much they do invade our privacy. While they note that they currently only target particular demographics on a broad basis (e.g. "women aged 20 to 30"), I see no reason why, given cheap enough technology, they wouldn't extend this to target individuals. With the right blend of time and motivation, this isn't so unfeasible. But see previous posts as to why loyalty cards are different to ID cards.
Secondly, Charles Kennedy is kicking back against terrorism as an excuse. Good for him, although the image caption leaves the details out, I notice. Turns out it's actually quite easy to frighten people into doing whatever you want them to do, once they're completely dependent on you for how they live.
Wednesday, November 17, 2004
Blunkett concerned about loyalty cards
Interesting, Blunky's comparing ID cards to supermarket loyalty cards, the big fat BBC quote being: "It is a really good opportunity to start debating what is know [sic] about us, by whom, who supervises it and how we can get a grip on it"
Start debating? Maybe if he hadn't been so eager to chase down terrorists and immigrants, he would have noticed that these kind of discussions have been going on for years. Maybe if he hadn't simply swept the arguments aside in favour of promoting his own top-down, proud decision-making abilities, then we could have broached the subject of privacy, the state and liberty together with the government, from the start.
And for the record, the answers to the Spot the Difference competition, between Nectar cards and proposed ID cards were:
Yes, let's have this privacy debate, here and now. Open the doors, and hey - why not put the whole IDatabase on hold while we're at it, huh?
Start debating? Maybe if he hadn't been so eager to chase down terrorists and immigrants, he would have noticed that these kind of discussions have been going on for years. Maybe if he hadn't simply swept the arguments aside in favour of promoting his own top-down, proud decision-making abilities, then we could have broached the subject of privacy, the state and liberty together with the government, from the start.
And for the record, the answers to the Spot the Difference competition, between Nectar cards and proposed ID cards were:
- I'm not forced to have a Nectar card (and, indeed, don't).
- I don't have to pay for a Nectar card
- I can stop using it whenever I like (if I had one)
- There's no inherent coupling between the card and a person (I believe - comment if wrong). I can give my card to someone else, who can "attach" their shopping behaviour to it.
- Sainsbury's, Vodafone, et al, aren't in a position to decide my fundamental freedoms based on the card. Admittedly they could attempt to spot "unusual" behaviour based on data associated with the card, and perhaps restrict my ability to shop at their shops based on it, but a). that's not good business for them, b). I can always shop elsewhere.
Yes, let's have this privacy debate, here and now. Open the doors, and hey - why not put the whole IDatabase on hold while we're at it, huh?
Tuesday, November 09, 2004
Petition Time
Quick, you've only got 10 days left to add your name to the NO2ID on-line petition against UK ID cards. Normally I'm sceptical of the impact of petitions (and am somewhat in this case), but if NO2ID's latest newsletter is correct, "Cabinet Office rules mean that e-petitions with more than 300 signatures are listed on the Number 10 site, along with a Government response." i.e. there will have to be at least some minimal amount of feedback on the issue.
Hopefully I'll chase this up, but I can't (currently) find any up to date info on this on the Cabinet Office site, even with a search. That may be just me being lazy. Anyway, spread the petition link to friends and enemies alike.
Also, Phil Booth of NO2ID will be speaking at the Cowley Club in Brighton, this Thursday the 11th from 6 to 8pm. It's on London Road, and here's a map.
Hopefully I'll chase this up, but I can't (currently) find any up to date info on this on the Cabinet Office site, even with a search. That may be just me being lazy. Anyway, spread the petition link to friends and enemies alike.
Also, Phil Booth of NO2ID will be speaking at the Cowley Club in Brighton, this Thursday the 11th from 6 to 8pm. It's on London Road, and here's a map.
Thursday, October 28, 2004
ASBOs in the eye of the beholders
Recommended reading for Mr Blunkett: The BBC asks readers, "Do anti-social behaviour orders work?" and, for once, gets a pretty consistent stretch of answers...
Update: Also worth checking out is the Q & A session with Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty. She deals quite calmly and sensibly with some of the issues and opinions for and against ASBOs, for example:
"My family has suffered for 18 months from young youths who have threatened to damage my property and shout verbal abuse. I believe that more power should be given to the police and courts. Do you agree? (Keith Bennett)
"When there are serious problems of crime and what’s now being called anti-social behaviour, the easiest thing for a Home Secretary to do is to say, I’m going to tackle this by creating more powers by legislating again and that is why we’ve had 30 criminal justice Bills in the last 10 years.
I’m afraid that the tough truth is that more and more criminal offences, wider and wider police powers do not in themselves solve deep-seated problems of crime and anti-social behaviour. You can solve perhaps a bit more by having more financial resources to put into policing and also to put into tackling the causes of crime, like high unemployment in certain areas, drug addiction, poor housing and so on. But just legislating is the cheapest thing in the world, the easiest thing in the world and it doesn’t necessarily always do any real good."
Update: Also worth checking out is the Q & A session with Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty. She deals quite calmly and sensibly with some of the issues and opinions for and against ASBOs, for example:
"My family has suffered for 18 months from young youths who have threatened to damage my property and shout verbal abuse. I believe that more power should be given to the police and courts. Do you agree? (Keith Bennett)
"When there are serious problems of crime and what’s now being called anti-social behaviour, the easiest thing for a Home Secretary to do is to say, I’m going to tackle this by creating more powers by legislating again and that is why we’ve had 30 criminal justice Bills in the last 10 years.
I’m afraid that the tough truth is that more and more criminal offences, wider and wider police powers do not in themselves solve deep-seated problems of crime and anti-social behaviour. You can solve perhaps a bit more by having more financial resources to put into policing and also to put into tackling the causes of crime, like high unemployment in certain areas, drug addiction, poor housing and so on. But just legislating is the cheapest thing in the world, the easiest thing in the world and it doesn’t necessarily always do any real good."
New 'yob' targets to be unveiled
According to the BBC, the Home Office is pressing forwards with its widespread, "tough-on-crime, tough-on-10-year-old-kids" ASBO plans around the country, bringing in specialised experts as promised.
But do they really work at all? Or are we just trying to get our population to behave through heavy-handed threat of incarceration and violence?
Minister Hazel Blears also revealed this week that "about a third" of Asbos were breached - with some people jailed and others not. (And how come this appears as the last 2 lines in the BBC article? Aren't statistics like this important any more?)
BBC Magazine highlight some of the more original uses for ASBOs so far, confirming the question: Are we merely using draconian legal measures to replace our lack of social cohesion and our ability to raise the next generation sensibly?
Or, to put it another way, are we now so isolated from each other that our only recourse is a political+enforcement one? Are we no longer in a position to recognise, deal with and prevent the very real problems arising directly around us? If so, why not? If the factors that traditionally stop us from tearing each other apart are failing, what's to say that ASBOs are a decent, long-term solution?
But do they really work at all? Or are we just trying to get our population to behave through heavy-handed threat of incarceration and violence?
Minister Hazel Blears also revealed this week that "about a third" of Asbos were breached - with some people jailed and others not. (And how come this appears as the last 2 lines in the BBC article? Aren't statistics like this important any more?)
BBC Magazine highlight some of the more original uses for ASBOs so far, confirming the question: Are we merely using draconian legal measures to replace our lack of social cohesion and our ability to raise the next generation sensibly?
Or, to put it another way, are we now so isolated from each other that our only recourse is a political+enforcement one? Are we no longer in a position to recognise, deal with and prevent the very real problems arising directly around us? If so, why not? If the factors that traditionally stop us from tearing each other apart are failing, what's to say that ASBOs are a decent, long-term solution?
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
What do *you* think?
According to their press release, the Home Office have issued a couple of documents today, including their response to the HAC (40 pages), and a Summary of Consultation Findings (104 pages).
The Summary of Findings looks interesting. I note initially that while the government are quick to tout the popularity of the old "Entitlement Cards" as a solid backing for progressing with a scheme ("The purpose of the consultation exercise was to elicit views on the draft legislation, rather than on the principle of introducing identity cards, which has already been shown to have widespread public support."), they note that the consultation itself should be viewed from a much more skewed viewpoint:
"It is worth bearing in mind that responses to consultation exercises are by definition self-selecting rather than representative. People tend to be motivated to write in because they are opposed to the proposals under consultation."
This may be worth bearing in mind when the consultation figures seem to conflict with recent research. Compare:
Consultation Responses
Opposed: 48%
In favour: 31%
Supportive in principle, with reservations: 8%
Neutral: 13%
General Correspondence received during the consultation period
Opposed: 21%
In favour: 31%
Neutral: 48%
Hmm, hardly an overwhelming majority in favour, I'd say...
I've yet to go into further detail about the document, but it seems that the general public are often as confused as the government over exactly what ID cards are for, although the consultation hints that really, it's for everything it could possibly be for.
I encourage all to read.
The Summary of Findings looks interesting. I note initially that while the government are quick to tout the popularity of the old "Entitlement Cards" as a solid backing for progressing with a scheme ("The purpose of the consultation exercise was to elicit views on the draft legislation, rather than on the principle of introducing identity cards, which has already been shown to have widespread public support."), they note that the consultation itself should be viewed from a much more skewed viewpoint:
"It is worth bearing in mind that responses to consultation exercises are by definition self-selecting rather than representative. People tend to be motivated to write in because they are opposed to the proposals under consultation."
This may be worth bearing in mind when the consultation figures seem to conflict with recent research. Compare:
Consultation Responses
Opposed: 48%
In favour: 31%
Supportive in principle, with reservations: 8%
Neutral: 13%
General Correspondence received during the consultation period
Opposed: 21%
In favour: 31%
Neutral: 48%
Hmm, hardly an overwhelming majority in favour, I'd say...
I've yet to go into further detail about the document, but it seems that the general public are often as confused as the government over exactly what ID cards are for, although the consultation hints that really, it's for everything it could possibly be for.
I encourage all to read.
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
Shields up
Blunketty Goodness is to respond to the Home Affairs Committee report on ID Cards, tomorrow. Will we get more details on the proposal? Will Dave and Tony have figured out just what the whole thing is for yet? Who knows, but the Register put together an incisive preview of the whole thing.
Sunday, October 17, 2004
The making of the terror myth
The Guardian are giving some coverage to the upcoming BBC2 documentary, The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear. Made by the guy behind "The Century of the Self", this 3-parter looks at the web spun by politics and media alike around that "war" on terror thing that seems to be all the rage right now. It promises to take the various concepts sold to us such as dirty bombs and Al-Quaeda, and actually go so far as to -gasp- doubt their effectiveness and even their existence. Appalling statistics that many of us are already aware of will help watchers to further question the endless stream of "facts" that we get presented with every day.
Let's just hope it gets picked up on more than "Century of the Self" did...
Update: Gah, did I really forget to add the time it was on? OK, Wednesday, 9pm, BBC2. There.
Let's just hope it gets picked up on more than "Century of the Self" did...
Update: Gah, did I really forget to add the time it was on? OK, Wednesday, 9pm, BBC2. There.
Monday, October 11, 2004
Who am I?
The Register lays the smackdown on our favourite Blonkett's recent speech at the Labour Conference. Read to the bottom of the article to gain wondrous insight into just what joy the card scheme can bring into your life. Mmmm... "to promote our citizenship, to value the fact that ... taking on citizenship is a tremendous step as part of our mutuality, as communities and a nation."
That's why I feel so despondent about the UK then - it's all because I don't have a card so I have no idea who I am. yeah, that'll be it.
I may read through his speech once I have a nice, calming cup of tea in hand. Such drastic measures must be taken these days, in order to avoid being eternally irritated by the endless spewstreams of drivel being forced upon me by the Home Office. Still, venting it constrictively into the various HO consultations might help.
That's why I feel so despondent about the UK then - it's all because I don't have a card so I have no idea who I am. yeah, that'll be it.
I may read through his speech once I have a nice, calming cup of tea in hand. Such drastic measures must be taken these days, in order to avoid being eternally irritated by the endless spewstreams of drivel being forced upon me by the Home Office. Still, venting it constrictively into the various HO consultations might help.
Friday, October 01, 2004
Are *you* funding terror?
Three more arrested for planning to fund terrorism, with the police (I assume) alleging that they ... "entered into, or became concerned in, an arrangement as a result of which money or other property was made available, or was to be made available to another, and knew or had reasonable cause to suspect, that it will or may be used for the purposes of terrorism."
Now, I'd not read that before. But it seems like you could arrest a lot of people based on this, especially considering that the public have been alerted to the fact that buying pirated films funds terrorism - can I demand that those buying dodgy DVDs at a local market be carted off and orange-suited?
Furthermore, given that terrorists seem to have a penchant for e-mail scams, it makes sense then that they also indulge in the lucrative sale of items via spam e-mail. I therefore have reason to suspect that anyone falling prey and purchasing a few boxes of Viagra surreptitously is probably doing their bit to make the world a more dangerous place. Lock em up!
Alas, neither Gordorn Brown nor the treasury itself provides ready lists of likely funding sources, so it may take a little research before I can be sure that I'm only spending my money at fully-Govt-certified non-terrorist-lovin' outlets. Thankfully my paranoia has increased (or, perhaps, been cultivated) to the point where I can now wholeheartedly gaze suspiciously at those that have most to gain from anti-terrorist measures, and prevent myself from passing financial resources in their direction, just in case.
After all, in this dark, dark day and age, all suspicion is reasonable.
Now, I'd not read that before. But it seems like you could arrest a lot of people based on this, especially considering that the public have been alerted to the fact that buying pirated films funds terrorism - can I demand that those buying dodgy DVDs at a local market be carted off and orange-suited?
Furthermore, given that terrorists seem to have a penchant for e-mail scams, it makes sense then that they also indulge in the lucrative sale of items via spam e-mail. I therefore have reason to suspect that anyone falling prey and purchasing a few boxes of Viagra surreptitously is probably doing their bit to make the world a more dangerous place. Lock em up!
Alas, neither Gordorn Brown nor the treasury itself provides ready lists of likely funding sources, so it may take a little research before I can be sure that I'm only spending my money at fully-Govt-certified non-terrorist-lovin' outlets. Thankfully my paranoia has increased (or, perhaps, been cultivated) to the point where I can now wholeheartedly gaze suspiciously at those that have most to gain from anti-terrorist measures, and prevent myself from passing financial resources in their direction, just in case.
After all, in this dark, dark day and age, all suspicion is reasonable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)