Trial without a jury - how is this acceptable?
The
BBC and
The Sun are reporting the story that for the first time in England and Wales a trial without a jury will occur.
This is simply unjust. It is one of the fundamental rights that defines our society.
BBC clip on the ANPR database
The BBC has an interesting video on
ANPR here which eloquently summarises the pros and cons of the system.
As you might expect, whilst I can acknowledge the benefits of the system in all manner of crime fighting, I fear the scheme is the precursor to things like road charging, extended congestion/emission charging and additional driving laws/restrictions with far tougher enforcement.
Moreover it enables the government to comprehensively track innocent people travelling - whether to go on holiday or on a business trip or simply to meet with friends. Add this to the extensive public transport surveillance infrastructure, air and port surveillance and additional general monitoring cameras and suddenly it has become extremely difficult to travel without being recorded.
This is not necessarily a bad thing if we can trust the people working in the government to
behave responsibly and not
lose data.
However if we were to get people in the government willing to abuse their positions and compromise national security and individual liberty, then the flood gates open for stalkers. All it would take is a few well positioned people and suddenly people in government protection would become vulnerable (as they frequently travel by car). Violent partners with connections could conceivably track down their relocated Exs and their children. Debt collectors could hunt for evaders and company activities could be extensively scrutinised, perhaps by competitors.
Sometimes it is important to be anonymous and have privacy for legitimate reasons, not simply to cover up your expenses, for example. So a message to the Labour party, not that I expect it to be heeded at this late hour: if you want to protect yourself, protect others.
Labels: My philosophy, Politics, Privacy, Technology
Google's "Wiping data 'hits flu prediction'" excuse
According to
this BBC article Google is claiming that if they are forced to delete user data after 6 months as the EU desires then they will not be able to predict pandemics.
I don't know about you, but that is the single lamest justification for keeping data / infringing privacy I have ever heard. They could easily have said that the data enables them to offer improved services and had a degree of credibility.
Instead they've spun a tall tale which makes me worried. When a company or government tries to cover up its data retention and usage practices then it suggests we wouldn't like what they are doing with our data.
In regard to spotting pandemics, just because people are searching for swine flu or indeed flu symptoms, this does not necessarily mean that people are infected with it. They could have regular flu or simply have heard something on the media and decided to do some research (as I do all the time). Also if Google is going to rely on data older than 6 months to tell people that a pandemic might be near then its probably a little late.
Moreover I am pretty sure health officials around the world can spot and measure pandemics far more
accurately than Google could.
I'm not convinced. Are you?
Labels: Politics, Privacy, Web tools
A response to Labour's: "Cameron's Conservatives" smear campaign
I am less than impressed with Labour's new smear campaign against David Cameron. Granted Cameron is a spin merchant and he does game the media, but name me one politician elected today who doesn't?
So why is Labour's campaign poor? Take a look at this
Labour election broadcast which apparently features real people.
1) It is entirely negative. By contrast
Cameron's Party Election Broadcast is fairly positive. It is true that Cameron HQ has created some negative videos, specifically in regard to
Gordon Brown and debt however Cameron has not resorted to the personal slurs Labour has - for example when Labour created a
billboard ad featuring Hague with Thatcher's hair,
Dave the Chameleon or this..
improved version or
the whole McBride scandal2) Comments/ratings are censored/disabled on the YouTube version of Labour's election broadcast, however
this site contains some comments, most of which are critical of the video.
3) I think there are some important policy considerations in the video, however the way they are presented prevents anyone from taking them seriously.
Labels: My philosophy, Politics
Tfl to trial speed control devices in cars
According to this
bbc video Transport for London is going to fit 20 cars/buses with machines that know the speed limit of all roads within the M25 and display a green smiley face when a driver is under the limit, an orange straight face when the driver is slightly over and a red sad face when the driver is over by more than a few miles per hour.
There is also a "voluntary" mode in which drivers can have the device restrict the maximum speed of the car to the limit.
What do you think about these devices? Another authoritarian measure to enforce unnecessarily slow limits/raise revenue or a legitimate attempt to improve safety?
My opinion is this: when the speed limit is reasonable then it should be respected. However I know of not one speed limit anywhere which has been raised. They are only going down - meaning that there is no reward for safety, only punishment for danger.
Based on this philosophy the end point is that we all get out and walk.
Labels: Politics, Technology
