60 days for disturbing the reality.

Curious. A man has been jailed for 60 days after showing someone one of the Iraq beheadings videos via his mobile phone.

The magistrate told Younis: "I struggle to understand why you had images on your phone entailing the death and degradation of another human being, regardless of their religion or race.

Personally, I hate the phrase "I don't understand why..." - if lack of understanding stands behind our criminal system, then our judicial system is considerably more pre-Enlightenment than I had been led to believe.

The problem in this case, perhaps, is that there currently exists a very fine line between sensationalism, distressing images, and political/moral resourcing. There are also, for instance, various videos of military helicopters bombing and gunning down people, widely available. This line between the Disney-esque illusion of "clean", faraway wars, and the very gritty, very disturbing reality of a violent battleground is in some ways thicker than ever, thanks to a media landscape based on political agenda and consumer-friendliness, and a self-spun cocoon to separate our Western lives from harsh truths. The "distressing" pictures we get to see tend to be rather censored, and in a broadcast scenario with many people watching, perhaps that's a good thing.

But it also leaves us unprepared. And without the shocks of a violent world, how are we placed to judge whether the political decision to go to war is really justified? How can we arrive at an informed opinion if the only arguments we have are political, hypothetical, intangible, and our sphere of understanding lacks any sense of physical pain, and the plight, torment, or hostility of the people involved?

Everyone agrees that the first world war was a terrible thing. But all the remembrance ceremonies, poppies and poetry in the world have never made such an impression on me, never made me think about what war really is, as much as a black and white photo in my history text book depicting the corpse of a soldier attached muddily to a barn-wire fence.

We are adults, we should be acting as adults. Some times, we need to face up to what is really happening in the world. 60 days in jail, for a misunderstanding during a political discussion, highlights where we are in terms of what we want to be shocked by (reailty TV, usually), and what we often just want to sweep under the carpet - but that in actual fact represents the effects of choices we make every day.

Or perhaps if we know what war truly is, we won't be so supportive of it next time?

(Side note: This post written just metres from the PM himself, I believe.)

Fringe Meeting in Brighton, this evening

Oops, a little late in bringing it up, but there's a NO2ID-organised fringe meeting this evening in Brighton, in amongst all the others.

Address is Brighthelm Auditorium, North Road. 7.30-8pm. Speakers aren't listed on the above link, but the Rt Hon Clare Short's on the panel, for sure. Have't got a leaflet one me now, so can't tell you who the others are. Rumours are that Home Office ID Honcho Andy Burnham will be turning up as well, so could be a good one.

Looking nervous is crime enough

The Guardian had it on Thursday, SpyBlog and BoingBoing covered it... still, it's worth another mention to flag just how dangerous stepping outside your own front door is these days. And not from terrorists...

Ordinary man arrested on tube

So many people are still under the illusion that the police will be careful about who they arrest. The death of De Menezes woke them up a little, but all that's changed is that people get Tazered instead of shot. It's pretty clear now that any kind of suspicion is sufficient for detaining someone.

Write to your MP, start kicking up a fuss about shit like this. Shatter people's illusions.

N.B. The incident took place on July 28th. Curious that the Guardian don't make that clear until halfway through the article. This was still less than a week after the shooting of De Menezes.

A climate of terror

The prime minister told the United Nations yesterday that its failure to agree a tough line against the environment had only strengthened the forces of nature.

Tony Blair ... used his speech to warn world leaders that they would only defeat the devastating might of the planet when their determination and unity matched the single-minded will of "a global weather system hell-bent on destruction".

He said: "Hurricanes, tsunamis and rapidly-spreading plagues will not be defeated until our determination to prosper is as complete as theirs, our defence of living as we want as absolute as their lust for death, our passion for progress as great as their passion for regression."

The BBC report that

The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) said any attempts to "disrupt essential goods and services that rely on oil" would be met by "firm action" from police forces.

The Guardian goes into a little more depth:

If the situation deteriorates the government can invoke powers under the Civil Contingencies Act, brought in after the 2000 protests to give police more muscle against protesters.

Once emergency laws to protect or restore the fuel supply are in place police powers could be "limitless", according to the Cabinet Office. In a worst case scenario, this might include calling in troops.
...
A spokesman for [ACPO] said: "We have a raft of legislation to deal with this."

The morning bulletin from ePolitix (I can't find a copy on the site yet) has a slightly more specific take on it:

The Army plans to use heavy vehicles to remove blockading lorries and the government could use anti-terror laws to stop the country being held to ransom by the protesters.

(My emphasis, naturally.)

Exclusion Zones, 2 is a crowd... Has the ability to protest (/argue) under our democracy died out yet?

Update, 15 Sep: A little old to warrant a new post, but also relevant here. Spyblog reports on 6 NO2ID protestors being arrested whilst they drove to a European summit, on "suspicion of conspiracy to commit criminal damage" (my emph again).

Miscellanea

Mostly caught up after being sans news for a couple of weeks. A few quick links...

Seems like the Blairite God complex is in full swing again, as he starts demanding cash to ake people respect each other. In any sensical universe, the idea that you can solve deep emotional problems through financial motivation/punishment and strong-arm techniques would be one met with loud, echo-ey laughter. Only in the UK could it be used to actually try and gain public popularity. The moronic state of affairs is summed up best, I feel, by a quote from this BBC article:

Mr Blair dismissed accusations of a "nanny state".

"People need to understand that if their kids are out of control and they are causing a nuisance to the local community, there is something that is going to happen," he said.

I'm sure I remember my nanny saying something very similar to me. Still. More commentary on this to come.

Back on ID Cards, Dr Emily Finch talks to a career criminal and recognises (quite rightly) that the technology is generally not the problem in any system - the human is.

"What fraudsters know about is human nature."

Criminals adapt. Humans are fallible. Are we so naive as to think otherwise?

Finally, the Independent has an interview with Lord Falconer, in which Mr Blair's former room-mate steps around politically sensitive questions, and makes a quick jab at the host paper about the issue of trust vs Iraq.

"There were very, very profound disagreements in parts of society about that particular policy, in particular in The Independent newspaper," he says. "That there was disagreement about that issue should not lead to a corrosion in trust. Plainly those who disagree with us on Iraq do not in any way forfeit our trust, and it should be visa versa."

Hmm, I trust the cabinet less after Iraq because I felt they deliberately fed me poor arguments and patronising information, and refused to listen to any counter discussion. Nothing seems to have changed too much, either.

In absentia

Scribe is away for 2 weeks, so blog posts may be sparse. I leave you in the good hands of Charlie, though - look after the country while I'm gone.

Clarke Before the Horse

If you want something to be true, you might eventually find evidence to support your view. But you'll be (dis)missing a whole bunch of other evidence that may go against your beliefs. "Science proves it."

So it's a shame that Charles Clarke is going on faith rather than evidence when it comes to the connectedness of various bombers. Perhaps this is in response to Saturday's story in the Independent (reg required now, but see this article which seems to mirror it) about an MI5/MI6/GCHQ/Police inquiry into the links finding, well, none.

Yet despite "the biggest anti-terrorist investigation held in the country", Clarkey still holds out. Is there any point to these inquiries if the government continue to ignore them?

And doesn't Charles' attitude hold a certain resemblance to previous "certainties"?

Leaks in the Public Interest

Yet again we have to rely on leaks to dispute the "facts" fed to us by people whose interest it's in to lie to us.

Brazilian probably wasn't acting or dressed suspiciously, was already restrained when shot (8 times - I thought it was 5 still...), and wasn't even identified properly because a "police officer was relieving himself" when de Menezes left his home. One leak to reveal another.

It cannot be overstated as to just how much of a cock-up this all is. Yet the powers that be - the powers that have insisted on giving themselves all the more power without any real accountability - will probably cloak themselves in silence until this all goes away. The BBC article currently states at the bottom:

"Scotland Yard and the Home Office have so far said it would be inappropriate to comment."

Translated, I read this as "Scotland Yard and the Home Office realise that anything they say could be taken down and used against them, just as the lies they've already come up have made them look foolish." But that's just me. Personally, I think that if you want power to shoot anyone dead on a mere whim, you must have accountability. If you have accountability, you'd better be prepared to take responsibility for all of your actions.

A member of the public has been shot dead after repeated police bungles and an overly-paranoid atmosphere of panic. This is not the way to run a city, no matter what threats we're told we face. I've lost track a bit - when's the public inquiry?

Furthermore, it's interesting to compare the leaked reports with the original BBC eyewitnesses and their Q&A on the shooting. From the latter:

"The police do not make their exact tactics public."

It's really time we started demanding an answer to the question, "Why not?"

"There are risks to attracting media attention."

As the government sets out its procurement requirements for an ID system with one sweeping hand, they also seem to be hiding the failure of their GPS-tracking system with another. Praise be for leaked documents.

(via spyblog)

Remembering that accusations of repeated government incompetence, when it comes to IT projects, are oft swept aside, it's worth considering just what relationship the illustrious members of Whitehall have with technology. Hype is so easy to believe when you're under pressure. What's intruiging is not simply the failure of the technology (tests wil always be needed, and technology will always remain a progressive frontier by nature), but the extent to which it failed:

"[GPS] relies on sight of the sky to give a location. The strength and accuracy of the signal generally relies on at least four satellites being visible. If the subject is between tall buildings, a canyon effect can prevent accurate location. Leaf cover and cloud cover can mask the strength of the signal. Location cannot be obtained on planes, some intercity trains and the Underground. Location is usually lost inside buildings. ... There is little prospect of overcoming these limitations in any substantial way during the lifetime of the pilot."

GPS is not new. As such, I suspect that these are facets of the system that any urban-bound GPS enthusaiast could probably have told you before starting the project. It is this utter contrast between what our MPs think technology will do, and what a large number of people know it probably won't do, that I find disturbing.

The FAQ linked to above states:

"We will ensure that lessons are learned from past IT projects."

But what really needs to be fixed is this mismatch between expectation and reality.

The second thing of note in the failed GPS project is the extent to which bad results are actively hidden from public scrutiny, and conclusions are only announced once the "right" result has been obtained:

"We have not sought to publicise the pilot scheme since its launch in September 2004 due to the risks of negative media coverage of the poor results to date. ... We recommend that you agree to the proposed extension of the pilot until 31 March 2006. This would allow sufficient time for improved results and deliver justification of the large financial commitment."

I seem to remember doing something similar in my physics experiments days - namely, reporting what people wanted, not what the truth was. I was, however, 13 years old at the time, and I'm certainly not a physicist in charge of large swathes of people now. If I were, I'd be worried.

Hopefully this is one of those leaked documents that gets leaked properly, into the wide world of the Net. Any links, or any sugestions/information ergarding FOIA-related retrieval, graciously welcomed...

Thinking it over? That'll be 5 years.

Ten in court for 'shielding' July 21 suspects - the ten include the alleged bomber's wife, and sister-in-law ...but what exactly does the Times mean by "shielding" in this context? Or, more specifically, what do the crimes (of which most, if not all, of the ten are accused simultaneously of) of "failing to disclose information about [alleged attempted bomber] Mr Osman and ... assisting him in evading arrest" mean? And what of, well, friendship and love?

For a "definition" of the crimes, see section 39 of the Terrorism Act. The crime is "interfering" with relevant information, by which the bill means that if a person "falsifies it, conceals it, destroys it or disposes of it, or if he causes or permits another to do any of those things" then -blam- 5 years for you (if it's an conviction of indictment - 6 months if a summary conviction).

Now ask yourself the question... what would you do for the person you're closest to? Would you immediately shop them to the police? Chances are you'd probably spend a whole lot of time at least mulling it over, which in itself is plausibly illegal. By not saying anything, you are necessarily "concealing" information. Furthermore, anyone you seek to gain guidance from - a friend, a family member - is virally drawn into the net of illegality at the same time.

This is the spread of the wretchedness we've got ourselves into. Even when it's not your fault - when fate dumps a situation like this into your lap - the power to make your own decision about what to do about it has been completely removed. As with many aspecs of modern life, our responsibilities - to ourselves, and to the ones around us that make up our daily lives - are no longer ours. Now, however, this state-run morality has so much momentum that no-one even questions it any more.

Some timely climb down

The BBC News headline reads "Labour admits ID card 'oversell'" Tony McNulty's following quote stands out in particular:

"Perhaps in the past the government, in its enthusiasm, oversold the advantages of identity cards. We did suggest, or at least implied, that they might well be a panacea for identity fraud, for benefit fraud, terrorism, entitlement and access to public services."

Does this represent some shift in attitude towards the ID system by those who have, up til now, had their "reputation" on the line? Or does it merely represent yet another change in PR tactics for the mission to get public approval for the scheme? As the article puts it:

In its "enthusiasm", the government had over-emphasised the benefits to the state rather than for "the individual in providing a gold standard in proving your identity"

This could be a move in the right direction. Identity is important, don't let us forget that. The struggle that exists in the Government plans is between letting the individual have control over their own life, and information - history - about an individual's every transaction being owned by the government. The two are not necessarily unentanglable.

Have had some thoughts in this vein recently, but want to tidy them up before presenting them. Still, just remember that everyone has something to hide, and not because they're criminal.

"UK should quit human rights convention"

EPolitix again... More
calls to replace human rights with extensive Police powers, this time from shadow education secretary David Cameron.

It's pretty clear that to many MPs, "rights" are only fundamental and good so long as the governing class have a firm hold over society. But in that case - once we have stablished that these rights are purely circumstantial and subject to change - we must agree to call them "privileges" instead. Unfortunately a "privilege to speak freely" and a "privilege to worship" don't sound quite so empowering, do they?

Is it time to re-establish the meaning of what a "right" is? Or are we now too afraid to question people when they try to take them away from us?

Testing the security water

Epolitix's newsletter today: "Home Office minister Fiona Mactaggart launches a new high security web-based sex offenders register."

Naturally it's a vastly different to the proposed ID system database, but it's not different in terms of the amount of security that the government should be applying to data protection. Can't find any details about it yet (I assume the press releases will hit later) so it's difficult to say what the scope of the project is, but in terms of a highly sensitive, connected Home Office data storage project, this could be one to watch as a litmus test for the ID system.

Voices in the wilderness

United we stand, divided we fall... or do we? The message overwhelming the public airwaves and tabloids these days is that "we stand together" in the face of adversity. The call from media and MPs alike to remember that "we are one" when confronted by a common enemy is striking, bold, and gives us hope.

But it's all too easy to get carried away in a tidal wave of patriotic affirmation, to try and find meaning in a world we can't fully understand, yet perceive to be going tits up. And so it's all too easy to rally alongside the calls for strength. But in echoes of the post-September 11th USA, it takes a lot more strength to go beyond this, and to question the majority.

It's worth highlighting, then, the few people in a position of power who are willing to put their reputation on the line, and challenge the official line no matter who tries to shout them down.

Props, then, to Dr Mohammed Naseem, chairman of Birmingham's Central Mosque, who seeks to remind us that "we cannot give our blind trust to the government", and actually remembers such frivolities as "democracy and ... law" while MP for the area, Khalid Mahmood, tries to dismiss his remarks as trying to "make cheap political points".

And shouts out to one Cherie "Blair" Booth, who spoke these words in Malaysia:

"at the same time it is all too easy for us to respond to such terror in a way which undermines commitment to our most deeply held values and convictions and which cheapens our right to call ourselves a civilised nation"

Perhaps her husband should remember this as he embarks upon his next mission.

Secret Police

Muslims are a bit nervy, understandably, and would like Police to let out some information about who they shot and why. Blair seems to think otherwise, and still refuses to link anything with Iraq - although manages to trace the problem back further than that... Iraq is merely the tip of a historical iceberg, but that doesn't excuse Mr B in the slightest.

I'm in London tomorrow. I shall be getting a bus and sitting downstairs. I'm not afraid to be afraid... (I'm also not willing to take the fall for what other people should be taking responsibility for.)

London DDoSed

In computer security, closing down the entire system when faced with an incoming attack is stupid. If you can trigger the shutdown easily, then you're effectively denying service to the system - a DoS attack. There's obviously a line between destroying the system and making it inaccessible, but the end result is mostly the same.

Dummy explosions shut down London.

The terrorists have already won if they can force us into submission through a few well placed empty bags/telephone calls, and we're so gullible that we believe that the only way out is to keep a stuff upper lip.

Some Assistance

Armando Iannucci in the Telegraph: Fear not, Mr Clarke - I've got the answers

A battlefield of lies and language

The news has been too disturbing to take in the last week or so, hence a lack of more regular updates. The political sphere has, once again, bound itself up in a whirlwind of tough talk and arrogant planning, leading to the all-too-familiar fall-back of tougher laws and a hard-nosed attitude. Despite the continual claim that the "terrorists will not win", support for further government/police power to save our doomed arses is up and rolling. The lists are being drawn up, but it remains to be seen who gets to question who or what is on them.

The BBC reports that Blair is meeting police and intelligence to work out what new police powers we need (including phonetap logs as permissible evidence in court) to prevent crime - no, wait - to prevent ideology. Blair has already shrugged off yet more criticism of the Iraq war, following a leaked government document that claims the war continues to act as a focus point for terrorist motivation. A point that Chatham House and the ESRC agree with in their "Security, Terrorism and the UK" report.

The BBC quotes Blair as saying:

"Of course these terrorists will use Iraq as an excuse," ... "They will use Afghanistan. September 11, of course, happened before both those things and then the excuse was American policy on Israel."

The FT adds to this:

"We have got to be very careful that we don’t enter into a situation where we think if we make some compromise on some aspect of foreign policy, these people are going to change. They are not going to change."

Will Mr Blair sweep the views of Ken Livingston* aside too, in his quest for world peace? Or will he continue to delude himself (and us along with it) into thinking that we're being attacked just for who we are?

As far as I can see, Blair accepts no responsibility for the games he and the rest of the leaders play on the global stage. The world of political spin he wants the media and the people to believe is a fantasy world in which good fights evil and light will defeat dark. Alas, the idea of the chosen one prevailing only worked for Keanu Reeves because he went out of his way to look good. Without the magic of Hollywood, Blair's going to have to face up to the real world some day. In the meantime, people can keep on squabbling and dying.

* Ken manages to over-simplify some things, such as the American's relationship with Bin Laden, but generally points in the right direction (which is as much as any of us can ask for these days).

Home Office defeated by small child

OK, possibly a slightly misleading headline, but it made me laugh... Anyway, 15-year-old "W" in Richmond has won his case against a 9pm curfew. Naturally, the Home Office will be appealing (although not in that sense), their main argument apparently being that W "had never been stopped by police inside a dispersal area", so was unable to 'claim'.

A Home Office spokeswoman is cited:

"Whilst not limited to young people, 'teenagers hanging around' is a big cause of concern to the public as cited in the British Crime Survey."

And therein lie so many reasons as to why the future of the country is in doubt. Do we actually understand our younger generation any more? Who can say. Do we expect them to just behave, despite the huge amount of pressure (socially, educationally and commercially) for them to conform to whatever-we've-decided this week?

I'm not a parent, but will continue to question our whole attitude towards the people who will be taking over the country when we're too old to run it anymore. The politicians will persist in claiming that parents should take responsibility for the actions of their children, and they're partially right. But they're also absolving themselves of any responsibility to society invested in them when they became MPs. The kicker is that adults and children alike are still part of a social fabric that all of us are a part of. Responsibility for anyone in that fabric also partially lands upon all of us, but so far (and increasingly moreso) our response is to look the other way, and hope things we don't like get "mopped up" by the police.

And then we'll be shocked when we do one day find ourselves in a police state.

Hitting the Fan

A morning of bomb blasts paralyses London, and with it much of the network and travel infrastructures of the South East.

Already the obvious middle-Eastern terrorist links are suspected - but not confirmed. The timing coincides with many things - the 2012 Olympic announcement, G8, and Bush's birthday (yesterday), but for me none of these make much sense. I'd be heartly surprised to learn that the chaos didn't arise out of our foreign policy and our perceived chumminess with said Bush. When local politics is so internationalised, other people's problems become our own.

But what to expect in the aftermath - or indeed right now, for that matter? America used terrorist attacks to authorise increasingly dictatorial laws. Spain used attacks to vote in a more left-wing policy. I suspect, in my sceptical state, that we can expect Blair and Clarke to follow the former on this, alas. I suspect the headlines will be full of mournful (naturally) cabinet ministers. This is fair. But what I also expect to see is resumed rhetoric on the nature of the beast we're "at war with", about the "British resolve" and about not "succumbing to murderers".

Well bollocks to that. Over the next few days, we need pressure on the MPs to remind them that all this shit comes out of their decisions, and their pulling strings on the world arena. And we need to question these decisions, constantly.

We need to remember that we already have full-on security processes, and yet stuff like this still happens because the causes are still being created on a day-to-day basis. When Blair presses for increased surveillance, ubiquitous tracking systems and the renewed urge for an ID system, don't ever forget that there are much, much larger problems that lead to such unrest, and that if we're to get to the bottom of them, we need much, much better action than simply watching over us all and pretending the problem will go away.

Fear is here, and the politicians will be very willing to capitalise on it.

Update: In his statement, Blair says:

"It is important however that those engaged in terrorism realise that our determination to defend our values and our way of life is greater than their determination to cause death and destruction to innocent people in a desire to impose extremism on the world."

Tell that to these people. (And yeah, I know that's US bombs. Big difference.)

IT's no good in Whitehall

The Guardian reports on 70 failing Whitehall IT projects, that we touched on before.

It's great to see a number of people picking up on the secrecy of the OGC reports about these projects. AFAICS, there is no "confidentiality" excuse to keep things private when public systems are being constructed for the public with the public's money. That excuse again? From the article:

The OGC's chief executive, John Oughton, has declined to publish any of the critical reports - citing as the reasons commercial secrecy and the possible prejudicing of "the effective conduct of public affairs by inhibiting full and frank discussion".

There are probably 2 aspects here. Firstly, "commercial secrecy" may refer to implementation-based trade secrets that vendors are disclosing to the government in order to seal bids. I guess. Secondly, there is a clash between the image promoted by companies to the public, and the image actually given through "frank discussion". Perhaps this is what Oughton means in his quote.

This is pretty preposterous, either way. This means, effectively, that the inner workings and progress of processes for some of the most money-sucking IT projects in the country and completely obscured to public scrutiny. As an IT professional, this - for me - ranks alongside secret trials in which evidence cannot be presented to the public (or the defendant, for that matter) for "security reasons", in terms of the imbalanced prioritisation we've let slip into the system.

If the systems that affect us break (or even if they don't) then we should have the ability to know why they broke, and the reassurance that current and future projects arent suffering the same fundamental problems that lead to an inefficient, wasteful government. If this transparency and - above all - accountability can't be assured, then the whole system is fubar, and needs to be changed.

The implications of this on the ID Card system are just a drop in the sea.

Second Reading Vote Results

Aye's: 314
No's: 283

BBC article. Majority of 31, down from 67.

Up to 40m credit cards 'hacked'

A harsh reminder that actually protecting the networks which details get fired over is difficult enough, even for the most secure of companies.

What makes the government think that it's ID-transferral infrastructure will be any less vulnerable? Or any less of a target? (Heh). And with a bank card, I can "simply" replace a card whose details have been stolen. What happens if, say, 5 million ID biometric details get compromised? Will I be paying 100 quid to get a new one? Would there be any point, seeing as it would be keyed to my biometrics?

I suspect there's a unique key associated with each card issued, so cards can be "cut off", etc. But I haven't seen anything yet about this level of contingency. Too many unanswered questions.

London Assembly tells Government to review its plans

The London Assembly and the SNP are both raising voices over the proposed ID card bill. Justice Minister Stewart Stevenson MSP says:

"Instead of this wasted measure, Scotland could put this money to good use and have 1500 community police officers on the street, making a real and difference to communities up and down the country"

which is a constantly-made, but interesting point, that hasn't really been looked at. Comparing an ID system to more officers could be considered as comparing apples to oranges. The plausible benefits of ID cards that don't make me shiver - more efficient processes, effectively - are obviously something you wouldn't get just be adding more community officers on the street.

But everything's swings and roundabouts. The proposal for more community officers intrigues me for one reason - the word "community" in there. Under a nation-wide ID scheme, the running of people's daily lives - their interactions with the state and with each other - are wholely intercepted, and the responsibilities and organisation of groups and individuals everywhere becomes intricately bound up with a (relatively) very small number of people in London.

The government wants, supposedly, to encourage respect, democratic participation and local decision making. Yet this scheme would indicate that they want anything but people in charge of their own lives. This ID system is the ultimate banner for a government that is afraid of its own people, and that lacks the trust to let them run themselves.

I've added the LA recommendation to my list of ID scheme reports, which admittedly is missing a few months...

Charles Clarke is a Pot!

Oh, this has me in the aisles... Charles Clarke is accusing the LSE of running "scare stories", and comes up with some fip-foop-fabulous quotes such as:

" they are really running a media campaign with scare stories of this type which it is very difficult for us to deal with because they won't show us the basis from which they are doing the work"

and

"What I can say is that the kind of figures that have been talked about in the media based on their briefings are total nonsense"

Funny how both statements are exactly the kind of criticism that has been pointed at Charles Clarke and the whole government proponent agenda for years now. Please, make it stop...

Tidal power

Many places are reporting on a new ICM poll (ePolitix, silicon.com, Guardian) that puts support for ID cards at 55%, rather than the 80% oft-quoted by ministers. With a bit of luck, this'll really force a proper debate over the issue, as opposed to any "government-sanctioned" attempt to force the government's views onto the nation.

Meanwhile, still consider pledging yourself if you've not done so yet.

US Biometrics-a-no-go / Pledgetastic

The Register reports on a Sunday Times article about Ireland dropping plans for biometric passports possibly because the US is doubting the technical aspects of biometrics. Here's the original Sunday Times piece.

Global inter-compatibility is one of the main driving forces behind biometric passports in the UK, and consequently the push for bioemtric-based ID cards. Up until now, the US has been particularly enthusiastic that travellers to its shores "embrace" the latest technology, but could this news be the first chink in the technological armour of our new-world government?

I suspect, for now, the ministers will stick to their guns and claim that "the technology is mature enough to work". Behind the scenes though, I guess this will ruffle some feathers amongst those whose technical naivety is still holding out. Face save first, talk sense later.

And of course this only addresses one issue of the debate - the technical. It would be hugely amiss to think that criticism of the proposed ID system is limited to the mere technicals. However, if the proposed cost keeps going up, and the technical shortfalls are being highlighted more and more every day, maybe there's hope that people will start thinking about what it is to be "governed" too.

For those who have thought about it already, and who don't like it, I urge you to sign up to NO2ID's pledge to refuse to register, and to bung a tenner to where it matters.

No to Freedom Act requests for IT transparency

Another Computer Weekly article revealing just how open our government is when it comes to things they can't quite seem to get right. CW have had their FoIA requests turned down for reviews of high-risk IT projects - including those concerning the NHS, the Child Support Agency, and the up and coming ID system.

The Office of Governemnt Commerce gives the following reason: "Gateway interviewees must be able to be candid about matters which could lead to serious recommendations" which fills me with wonder and curiosity. I think they're saying that confidentiality (or "secrecy") in the process leads to people being more honest. But it sounds pretty obtuse to me. Apparently it's in the public's interest to not know what's going on - knowing how things work would somehow hinder the process? Come on...

This, combined with the whole stinky delay about getting the Home Affairs Select Committee set up should be big indicators about just how "seriously" the ID Bill process is being taken. Anyone waiting for answers to all of this, and still thinking ID Cards are here for our benefit, has a screw loose or a chauffeur outside waiting to take them to Whitehall.

(BTW, I notice the last lot of CW links seem to have expired now, so I've kept a mirror of the above article, just in case.)

Society: "The reality ... is more complicated."

A survey from Joseph Rowntree Foundation has some interesting figures, via ePolitix.

One in five people said that "rowdy teenagers had a 'fairly big' or 'big' impact on their lives" - whether this is more or less than most people's expectated estimate is debatable, but of more interest is how it matches up to the image portrayed by the media.

And here's some useful advice for the government: "The researchers argue that a balanced approach - where anti-social behaviour orders are only sought after less draconian responses had failed - should be more widely acknowledged and promoted." Prof Hough adds that "measures to re-build the community's own capacity to respond are also crucial." Well, fancy that.

The report can be downloaded here.

All in "public" interest, of course...

A couple of Computer Weekly articles hit my eye...

First up, ID Cards minister Andy Burnham seems reluctant to commit to openness in the implementation of ID Cards. His quote? "I think there is a limit as to what can be put into the public domain, and at some point some of these processes will become matters of commercial negotiation. But you are seeing a willingness to be open." How "convenient". Note also Burnham's implicit trust of the technology - despite significant counterpoints by "officials" - towards the end of the piece. It's not time to change this blog's name to "Andy Burnham is an arse" just yet, but rest assured that the sentiment is taking concrete form.

Secondly, it looks like fears that the bill is being rushed through are pretty much confirmed. It's expected that the Bill will be discussed before an assessment as to its readiness is completed. I think you can find more info on the Gateway process here, but haven't got the time to look into it properly right now...

Costs? Accessibility? Who knows?

The Register picks up on a couple of points from the weekend's Observer and Mirror - namely, that the cost of ID Cards may triple, and that 600,000 disabled people won't be able to register under the biometrics scheme. The tripling figure comes from a London School of Economics report, which also notes that biometric certainty diminishes faster than the government hopes/thinks, so that records will have to be retaken every five years rather than every ten.

Getting away from the intricacies, the most interesting point is that the... "LSE report highlights the government's reluctance to disclose details of the scheme as one of the main problems with trying to work out the actual cost of implementing a national identity card scheme."

Hmm, what have they got to hide? Their excuse? "The Home Office has dismissed the report, saying that it does not accept the figures being quoted. It would not comment directly on the findings, however, because commercial contracts are confidential."

Right. A commercial contract that affects each and every one of us. So much for trust.

Do... you... understand?

Some really good analysis of that £1.3 billion figure from the Register - clear enough, even, to print out and post to my MP as some background reading.

Apart from tearing apart the government's claims of costs caused by ID fraud, it also highlights a survey issued by Detica that mentions not just public support for a scheme, but also the public's understanding of the issues at stake, too: although 94 per cent of people are aware of the ID card scheme, "two thirds have little or know knowledge of how it will work."

Isn't this an important aspect of democracy - education? It's hard not to be so sceptical of a government when it praises democracy, but keeps banging on about its own, flimsy figures while doing extremely little to actually explain the thing to the people it quotes.

Furthermore, the second article also addresses an interesting point regarding anti-scheme arguments: "the civil liberties arguments have not worked and will not work, and arguments (as pursued at some length by The Register, links below) that ID cards are an expensive irrelevance to the issues they profess to tackle also cut little ice. But the cost of the scheme and the public's lack of confidence are different matters." Indeed.

Stats and Sayings

A quick, intermediary post to follow up on the last, tying together some quotes and some more stats.

According to a spokesman for Blair, the scheme is about "getting a step ahead of the criminal or the terrorist." Practive vs Theory aside, the Times seems to dispute this, claiming that ministers will sell it on fraud, not terror aspects. The article also offers a glimpse of hope:

"The Home Secretary was also reported to be considering strengthening the powers of an ID card commissioner to oversee the scheme. He may also bring in measures to further limit government agencies’ access to the [register]" - both a move in the right direction, at least, if they were to come to pass.

In terms of stats, the Times article notes that... "A survey of 1,000 people yesterday revealed that the plans were backed by five out of 10 people as the best way to combat ID fraud. A MORI poll in April put the figure at 80 per cent in favour." - slightly more up to date than the December poll.

My favourite quote comes from a Computer Weekly article touching on the gulf between ID Cards and preventing telephone/on-line fraud. George Platt, general manager of the company commissioning the survey, said "The reality is the public has no idea."

Oh, and lastly on a sidenote... eh?

Day 101 in the Big Brother house...

The new ID system bill is due to be re-introduced today, in line with the last post. The Guardian report reads a bit like a press release at times ("the National Identity Register will be created ... to store details held on the cards, so they can be securely cross-checked." - securely? how can they be sure?), but has some more information including the fact that the results of the 10,000 strong volunteer trial will be published too - one wonders if that includes the withdrawn Cornish trial as well.

That's also 10 times as many people as the survey probably quoted by HO Under-Secretary Andy Burnham the other day, although he merely claims that support is still at 80% in "latest polls". Of course by his figures, that's still 1 in 5 that are against it.

The survey itself is pretty interesting reading, and makes you wonder how much of a dent campaigns such as NO2ID are making. Although, judging by the blatantly submissive responses (63% say that "police should have the power to make anyone produce their ID"), it's perhaps even more of an uphill battle than hoped. The killer is that only 10% would be willing to pay between 40 and 100 quid to get one of these Magic Cards. Considering that the Guardian article reports that "the cost of a passport will more than double to over £80 when new cards are introduced".. well, do the maths.

An update later probably, once more details are out. Time to start getting those letters to MPs and supporting NO2ID in the meantime.

Heads up...

NO2ID are reporting that the Mirror is reporting that the ID Bill might be pushed through before the end of May. My, they are keen, aren't they? Keen to avoid criticism, and to prevent as much scrutiny as possible, certainly in the eye of the public.

Experimental: Get blog posts via e-mail

I've been playing with some mailing lists so that you can (hopefully) get this blog sent straight to your e-mail inbox. As this is pretty untested, there may still be some things to iron out, but I figure the best way to find out what they are is to let people sign up and send feedback.

There are two lists - both get the main posts as they're published, but the first also gets comments. Both should be extremely low-traffic, and they're both moderated so you won't get spam. To subscribe to either (don't subscribe to both, there's no point...), click the appropriate link and fill in your details.

• All posts and comments


• Posts only, no comments

And don't forget, you can still access posts via the XML feed.

"Slot Respect A into Community B..."

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.

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 be re-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.

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.

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:

• 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."

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.

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

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.

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.

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."

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.

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:

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."

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.

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.

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?

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!

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.

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.

"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.

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?

Liberty is dead! Long live liberty!

Good 2 page analysis at the Register with some valid points:

• 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.

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?

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...

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...

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.

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.

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:

• 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...

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.

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? :)