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
Hope for civil liberties yet
Today I was extremely impressed to see the
Modern Liberty convention website. It is proof to me that many people are united in their disliking of and resistance to excessive and disproportionate surveillance and the curtailment of civil liberties.
I found the "
Petty Britain" page to brilliantly highlight the problems of poorly designed and written legislation and the brandishing of essentially innocent people as criminals. For example one man got a criminal record because his wheelie bin's lid wasn't firmly closed (see the site for more information). This is absolutely ridiculous.
As I've been growing up, increasingly I've seen the British civil liberties campaign evolve. What was once just a few disparate individuals trying to raise awareness has now grown into something which now unites NGOs and has cross-party support in government. Since the ID card bill was passed, I firmly believe it is only the Labour party whip which is keeping things going. The surveillance state is more vulnerable than it might first appear. The people of Britain will reclaim their liberties yet, and when we do, we will be able to turn to the rest of the world and say once again, this is how a liberal democracy should be.
Labels: My philosophy, Politics, Privacy
As I perused the newspaper online, I was saddened to learn that GCHQ wants a database of all mobile phone owners. I have two words to say to this: "Low Battery".
Here is a list of reasons why it might be a good idea:
1) When your calls are intercepted and your location identified, GCHQ will also be able to determine who you are and who the person you are talking to is. So if you are a criminal/terrorist then beware... unless you got your mobile second hand... or swapped with a friend... or found a way to unlock the phone... yeah...nevermind then.
Here is a list of reasons why it might be a bad idea:
1) If you are innocent the state will be able to track your movements. Wherever you carry your phone, it sends out a signal, even when switched off. With the authorities now able to track a mobile phone's location very accurately (
within 100 yards), if you're travelling, you can wave goodbye to privacy.
2) If you are innocent it will now be possible for the state to have a complete record of all your phone calls and identify it to a person, much in the same way as they do for land lines.
3) If you are innocent, it's another nail in the coffin for your privacy. When coupled with all the other surveillance legislation and proposals, such as the database of all communications, it makes it harder to live life without being spied upon constantly. Whereas government departments previously have had to ask for your mobile phone number, now it won't make the slightest difference.
Alas how now can one travel without being continually monitored? Trains/stations have CCTV and ticket tracking, buses have CCTV and, if using Oyster, ticket tracking as well. Car number plates are recorded by the vast
ANPR surveillance network cameras, all airports already have very sophisticated surveillance systems.
This measure is further authoritarianism in an age when liberty should be flourishing. Why is the government so happy and willing to throw away the freedom of its
innocent citizens? Specifically show me where I consented to this severe breach of trust. We wouldn't tolerate it if a business was this intrusive, so why can the state get away with it?
Labels: My philosophy, Politics, Privacy
My post was intercepted... what should I do?
Today I received a letter from my bank which had been opened. I know this because there was a small tear in the envelop and two identical claw-like tears on the edge of the balance sheet. Now as you might imagine, being a student, I'm not amongst the wealthiest of people, but I do know that my financial information should be confidential, and even more than that, I think there should be common courtesy in not opening other people's mail. It's called respect.
Labels: My philosophy, Politics, Privacy
EU & US Big Brother and the costs
Many times in my exploration through the internet I find Americans (and to a lesser extent EU members (not including the Brits)) who are extremely patriotic, drawing pride from their constitutions and freedoms. This I feel is natural and good. We certainly should compliment states and governments that respect the society they serve.
However in regard to the US, whilst most citizens still believe in liberty for themselves and their fellow neighbours, many have stopped supporting the notion that foreigners should also enjoy these same freedoms and rights, as can be shown through their "patriot act" and the US Visit scheme (in which all visitors must be fingerprinted and photographed). Also I don't envy anyone who has to try and obtain a US Visa! Interestingly though according to
Salon.com (you might have to view an advert to access the site), since 2001 according to the commerce department America has lost over $100 billion in tourist revenues because of the new "anti-terror" regulations and
Bruce Schneier points out the excessive costs of the scheme equating to a spend of at least $15 million per criminal/illegal immigrant caught.
The EU however is even worse, because unlike Americans who are directing their totalitarianism outwards, the EU is targeting its own citizens. For example,
Statewatch has highlighted that the "majority of the (EU Council) delegations supported the commission proposal providing for an obligation to
take fingerprints from the age of 6 years".
Unfortunately what both governments are missing is that one step leads to another. As with the ID Card scheme, when they are installed under one regime, other omnipotent officials use that as justification for installing them in a new location. The US approach therefore is doomed because "what goes around comes around".
The EU approach is also flawed, but for different reasons. The EU was created to prevent war and fascism returning to Europe. It sought to do this by creating economic and ideological connections based upon liberalism. By subverting this ideology which promotes tolerance with one which denies privacy or secrecy except to those in authority, the foundation for the abuse of human rights has been erected. Economic stability cannot always be guaranteed. Additionally as the pool of creativity is drained by bureaucrats and authoritarians the competitiveness and vibrancy of Europe will be threatened and undermined.
It is only by working together for a genuinely free world for all people that we can all enjoy the benefits. To deny freedom to others is to prove you do not deserve it yourself.
Labels: Human Rights, My philosophy, Politics, Privacy
ID cards: the idea that won't die
It has been over five years since I became interested in the ID card proposal and over seven since it was first introduced. During this time I have written to the Home Office (and political parties, NO2ID, Individual MPs and others) expressing my criticisms to the scheme. I've supported Spy Blog and NO2ID. I've questioned MPs over it.
Essentially I've been one of the people who, despite not having anything to hide, believes I have a lot to fear from this scheme (and the numerous others introduced in the name of security) and have made my voice heard: ID cards are a bad idea; totalitarianism is a bad idea. There are too many people who unquestioningly accept the "law" as a moral code or standard, as if it replaces ethics and virtue, respect for humanity and the right to life.
Even with the recent government data fiascoes and the function creep of their legislation and schemes, they are still demanding this extension of power.
So lets consider a few of the ways the government has tried to get the scheme through:
Benefit fraud
Identity fraud
Terrorism
National Security
"Everyone else has one" - in reference to the other EU nations that have cards (without the database I hasten to add)
Convenience
Mandatory with passport
Optional with passport
Increasing the passport fee to reduce the costs of the cards (Passports now cost £72!, ID cards and a passport was
originally going to cost £70)
Needed to get a job/benefits
Ignoring/discrediting opponents - The LSE report against ID cards was dismissed on the grounds that one of the contributors was a civil rights campaigner
"Biometric data will make it secure"
You won't need to provide biometric data initially
Everyone has to have one - Blunkett
Not everyone has to have one - Clarke onwards
Use of other legislation to circumvent need for ID cards + give the government other powers
America demands biometric passports anyway
And so on
Pretty underhand and coercive eh? The state is there to serve the people, not to control them. Indeed virtually all of the above arguments have either been entirely refuted or at the least are highly questionable.
There latest gimmick involves following the US strategy of attacking the liberties of foreigners who visit, migrate or study and getting them onto the scheme. Then it's just a small step to increasing the categories of people who must have a card. Military personnel, teachers, doctors, criminals, civil servants, the unemployed, anyone who goes to apply for a new job and needs to prove their identity and so on.
Sadly what the advocates of the scheme and the government fail to understand is that the reason I am against the scheme is because I am a patriot. I want the UK to be a beacon of success, prosperity, liberty and freedom. Identity Cards threaten these values to a far greater degree than terrorists, who we have grown very sophisticated at handling. America has proven to be so successful because the economic (e.g. private business) and civil spheres have not been intruded upon by the state.
We are in the middle of a dangerous descent towards authoritarianism. Technology should be used to improve the quality of life for humans, not merely as mechanism for coercion and control.
Labels: Human Rights, ID cards, Politics, Privacy
NO2ID expose "coercive" government
NO2ID currently are linking to a
poorly written document in which the government reasserts, albeit in very emotive and erratic terms, several arguments for Identity Cards. However the NO2ID annotations easily dispel its credibility. It's a real shame the government is stubbornly clinging to this flawed idea. With all this civil Liberty speak, now would be an interesting time for another terrorist strike wouldn't it?
Labels: Human Rights, ID cards, Politics, Privacy
Bad news for China
Here is an excellent example of what happens when you allow the state to become omnipotent:
China's 'Big Brother surveillance' to dwarf UK. Communist China doesn't sound like much of a utopia to me, but that could be because I haven't experienced the
miracles or played the
right video games.
Labels: Human Rights, Politics, Privacy
EU moving towards Big Brother?
I'm very alarmed by the recent news that Europe is shifting towards a more
authoritarian position. There are plans to
share DNA databases between members and several other issues such as sharing travel and banking information with the US which are currently in the media.
It seems to me that should the EU's values be corrupted and it decide to pursue dictatorial, intrusive policies in the name of terrorism, then individual member states will be permanently unable to defend the privacy of their citizens.
Obviously the UK is partly to blame for the emergence of such tyrannical policies in the first place and will no doubt pressurize other members to follow a similar line. I hope that member states have the courage to stand up for their privacy and freedom. If not, then 1984 will have got another step closer.
Labels: Human Rights, Politics, Privacy
The search engine I've switched to.
I decided to do a simple experiment a short time ago and not delete my history for a long time. However the results were alarming. It became very clear to me that I was far too dependent on Google, which despite their motto "Don't be evil", may actually prove to be extremely evil. Its not a chance I want to take with all my search information. So I went hunting for a better search engine with a decent privacy policy. Instantly this ruled out Yahoo, MSN/Live and AOL.
I eventually stumbled upon a meta search engine called
Ixquick who make a pledge on their homepage to protect user privacy and delete IP addresses from their log files within 48 hours. This is very good and unique amongst the major search engine players.
The search performance is generally good for global/US queries. However if you want to find local information then Ixquick doesn't currently deliver. Nonetheless for standard queries it is certainly worthy of your time and their algorithms do rank pages pretty effectively in my opinion.
Try it.
Labels: Privacy, Technology
Creeping surveillance - alarming update
I am still thinking about the issues raised in my previous post. Today however I want to quickly draw attention to this article:
Police fingerprinting. The basic problem is that I think within a few years we'll lose the right to not be fingerprinted (assuming they don't simply arrest you and take them anyway). Also how soon before they extend this to DNA?
Even more alarming is the fact that it will all be linked to the national identity database.
Dangerous times - for the innocent.
Labels: Human Rights, Politics, Privacy
Why does Google log my search enquires when I'm blogging.
Since the beta upgrade every time I log into blogger, I am also logged into Google.com. This means every time I make a Google search whilst logged into this site, my search terms are being stored. I am not happy with this development.
Labels: Privacy
Britain really is "surveillance society"
It annoys me that today the BBC has on its main page a
story about state surveillance when for a long time the media (and yes the bbc is included in this) has failed to give coverage to the important legislation or raise a debate with the public at the key moments. But today they have decided something the Information Commissioner said is worthy of the front page. How fickle.
Still any raising of awareness of this issue is good and certain newspapers have given this fair coverage:
TelegraphIndependentThe TimesOther newspapers have given the story less prominence:
The SunGuardian(based on website position)
Maybe what they really should be covering is which political party put us in this position...
Labels: Human Rights, Politics, Privacy
A few recent posts and articles on our changing approach to human rights.
I'm going to start with
SpyBlog. Today wtwu has posted "
Repeal or amend Labour's repressive laws?" It is an excellent post, and if you follow the links you'll find a
Lib-Dem campaign to reverse the damage caused by oppressive legislation passed under this Labour government and the "doom" with too many o's
blog (the name isn't important). I highly recommend
this post, which explains the changing attitudes in Europe towards terrorism.
Further away in Thailand the military have
taken control and In Iran
controls over free speech at universities are being tightened.
Clearly human rights remain as contentious an issue as ever.
Labels: Human Rights, Politics, Privacy
UK Transport policy update - Department of Transport response.
I am pleased to announce that the Department of Transport has responded to the
letter I sent to them. The reply is well written and courteous, and I do get the underlying sense that the woman partially agrees with me (maybe it is just a hope...).
Here it is (names are excluded and my comments are indicated with //):
"Dear Sir,
Thank you very much for your letter of 7 August to the Secretary of State on the subject of road pricing. I have been asked to reply. In your letter you raise a number of concerns in response to a newspaper article.
// Thank you for taking the time to respond, especially considering the pressures on the department of transport recently. //
As you will appreciate tackling congestion is a key long term priority in transport because it affects us all. It causes frustration to people stuck in traffic jams. It is bad for business because it disrupts the delivery of goods and services. And it affects people's quality of life.
// ....and it is bad for the environment because it causes pollution... //
It is a growing problem, especially around our major cities, where businesses and jobs are concentrated. As the economy grows, people want to travel more and travel further than they did before. If we do nothing, the problem will get worse in the next 20 to 30 years.
// ...you miss out the possibilities of Teleworking and the impact of the population size, but I agree it is an important issue and that is partly why I wrote to you. I don't believe any government should bury its head in the sand and hope a problem will go away... //
The Government is exploring the scope for developing a national system of road pricing - in line with its manifesto commitment.
// Its a quick fix solution to a problem that requires a long-term, sustainable, integrated policy. It might reduce congestion, but that will only be because people cannot afford to travel. I thought the idea of socialism was to help the people, not just tax them (or is this the new labour I've been hearing so much about)? //
This could mean charging on the basis of distance travelled with the charge varied according to how congested a road is. A Feasibility Study, published in July 2004, said that a national road pricing scheme had the potential to reduce urban congestion by nearly half, with about 4% less traffic using the roads at peak times. So a relatively small number of people changing the time that they travel, or travelling in a different way, could lead to a significant improvement in congestion.
// *sigh* According to data released by the Unlimited Jargon friends club, if you wear a hat, you are 40% more likely to experience a windy day. How many other alternatives have been considered? //
However, implementing a national road pricing system would be a massive and complex task. This is why to start with the Government has decided to focus on local pilot and pathfinder schemes, and support local authorities as they develop schemes which will test systems in different areas and establish what works.
// Perhaps you should replace "what works" with "what makes money". //
In your letter you raise the issue of public transport outside of London. Under the Transport Act 2000, for at least the first ten years, local authorities have to use the revenues raised by any road pricing scheme to help deliver their Local Transport Plan (providing the scheme comes into effect by 2011). After this time the local authorities’ share of net revenues can be spent as specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State. No decision has been made on what might be included in any such regulations. However, we are working with local authorities to enable the development of road pricing pilots that offer a fair deal for road users and work to the overall benefit of the places where they are implemented.
// Instead of working with on small scale community projects to improve an area, you are proposing creating an extremely complicated, bureaucratic system that will infringe on the public's privacy and make travelling more costly, which in turn will probably increase the English North-South economic divide. //
The Government is committed to improving public transport; it remains a key priority for us. Since 1997, spending on transport infrastructure has more than doubled.
// And yet clearly it hasn't solved the problem.... //
We have funded, and continue to fund, many local public transport schemes. The Crawley Fastway (a guided bus scheme) and Durham Park and Ride are recent examples of new schemes funded by the Department. We have also funded some very large rail projects, including updating the West Coast Mainline, which enables tilting trains to travel at 125mph - delivering much faster journey times. We are also investing in the Channel Tunnel rail link and upgrading the ticket hall at London Kings Cross.
// Whilst I support several of the policies mentioned, it is important to place Britain in context with the rest of the world. Japan has fast trains. Most of Europe has fast trains. The UK is still a long way behind and ticket prices are very costly during peak times (inhibiting travelling further). //
Furthermore, when local authorities bid for money from the Transport Innovation Fund (TIF) to implement road pricing schemes, they will be required to tell us what complementary transport measures they are proposing. It is for the local authority to determine what these measures will be, but it could include measures such as real-time information systems at bus stops, improvements to bus services or redesigning the road space to encourage more walking and cycling.
// I hate to be a spoil sport, but I think the fares from bus journeys should pay for upgrades to the stops, not car drivers. //
You also raise concern about the effects of a road pricing scheme on people travelling to work. The Government recognises how important it is for people to be able to get around, and that is especially true for those on low incomes who need to travel to work. We are certainly not trying to price these people off the road – indeed under some possible schemes they might pay less than now in motoring costs. What road pricing should do is to encourage some people to change their travel arrangements, perhaps by travelling a little earlier or later, by car-sharing, or by using public transport where that is an option. Not many people need to change their journeys for us to have an impact on congestion. All of the pilot schemes for pricing will assess carefully the impact on all groups, including those on low incomes, to help design the best arrangements.
// A good point. Low income families will be penalised more under the new scheme, especially those who live outside expensive urban areas and commute every day. According to you "not many people need to change", which is a little contrary to what you said earlier...I thought congestion was a major issue. If only a few people need to change then there is less of an argument for road charging than before. //
The Government is also actively promoting fuel efficiency. The Graduated Vehicle Excise Duty and the Company Car Tax are now both linked to vehicles’ carbon emissions. Motorists can save up to £210 in VED, and thousands of pounds on their Company Car Tax bill if they choose clean, low-carbon vehicles. Colour-coded energy efficiency labels for new cars, modelled on those for household white goods, were launched in February 2005 and are now in most UK car showrooms. These enable consumers to make informed and environmentally friendly choices when they buy a new car. The 2002 Powering Future Vehicles Strategy sets out the Government's policies to encourage the development and uptake of clean, fuel efficient vehicles.
// This is hardly solving the problem. What you've done here is increased tax on the wealthy (who will probably just ignore the increased costs) and on families. The labels are a good idea, but clearly not widely publicised (especially compared to the "think" campaign.) //
You suggest in your letter that speed limits should be adjusted according to the number of pedestrians in the area. The Department keeps all national speed limits under constant review to ensure they remain appropriate. In 2001 we considered raising the motorway speed limit but concluded that the increased risk of accidents and severity of those accidents far outweighed potential benefits. Particularly as police enforcement thresholds are 10% plus 2mph of the speed limit. This effectively means that enforcement may not begin until vehicle speeds exceed 79mph.
// Yet in Germany (where many motorways have no speed limits, but instead strict dangerous driving regulations) road accidents have been falling dramatically over the past decade (
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/germany.html) Once people in Great Britain accept that travelling by car is still an essential part of today transport policies, then maybe we'll be able to move forward. //
Local authorities are responsible for setting local speed limits, including speed limits by time of day. It is for them to decide when and where local speed limits may be changed. The Department published new guidance to local authorities on setting local speed limits on 8 August this year which will further assist in their decision making process.
// That still doesn't address my point of separating pedestrians and motorists. It doesn't even come close. //
The Department’s aim is to achieve safe, appropriate vehicle speeds that will reduce accidents and the risk of accidents and increase use by pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians.
// Increase use of roads by pedestrians? What kind of speed limits are you thinking of? //
Finally you raise the issue of black boxes and their affect on the privacy of individuals. We are conscious of these concerns and safeguards will need to be considered as we design any scheme. There are several ways to design a road pricing system - there are different types of technology and different ways of billing and paying. We need to work through the privacy implications of each of the options and it is too soon to say exactly how reassurance will be applied in any specific scheme. What is clear is that, as a minimum, the normal legal protections concerning the use of personal data would apply to all road pricing schemes, be they local or national."
// The data protection act is already under attack from central government. As previously stated no reassurances can be given. //
Yours sincerely,
BUT WAIT A MINUTE, what about the points I raised in my letter?
-There was a complete omission of any discussions of biofuels. I believe they have great potential (in a medium term time period) to solve many of our problems. If only 5% of drivers were to use biofuels, it would be the equivalent of taking 1 million people off the road. Brazil has done it. Actually (as the department of transport has used it above) according to the
Labour Party manifesto The "government will continue to support technological innovation to reduce carbon emissions such as hydrogen fuel-cell buses in London."
-Public transport outside London (and especially in rural areas) is completely inadequate (lets face it, one or two buses a day is not going to be enough).
-Many people in rural areas are already on low incomes and this tax could drive them onto state benefits. However the government's "clever" solution is to adjust the price of travelling down certain roads so rural areas will be cheaper apparently (but what about second home owners or city commuters?). They also want to make cities expensive (What about low income migrants stuck in council accommodation?). Perhaps the answer is to tax based on earnings, but then there is no point in having road charging. Whatever way you spin it, it doesn't make sense.
-Public transport is overpriced in virtually every part of the United Kingdom. For regular travellers driving is significantly faster and cheaper and more comfortable than waiting for a bus. You can also carry lots of luggage in vehicles. The letter avoids discussing the price of public transport.
-In my letter I mentioned businesses may move away from Britain as a result of the inevitable increased costs. Those that do believe they can still make a profit will pass on costs directly to consumers (reducing the disposable income of everyone further). There is no mention of this in the letter either!
-On the issue of road charging all signs suggest the decision has already been made, even though the department of transport acknowledges how complex and unwieldy it is.
-As expected, the letter fails to outline what safeguards will exist.
In summary, the arguments for road charging (reduction of pollution and congestion) could be achieved far more effectively with the requirement of fuel efficient engines in all vehicles, the use of biofuels and other renewable energy (how about a solar panel on every car to power the air conditioning?), small scale local schemes by people who know their area, competitively priced public transport and better designed, more efficient roads to get people completing their journey's faster. There is also an argument for decentralisation of goods and services and generally reducing the need to travel.
Thank you for reading and I hope I have convinced you to reassess your approach to transport.
To view the full story, check out my archive of posts on the "
UK Transport Policy" or select it from the sidebar.
Labels: Politics, Privacy
What could be worse than ID cards? The Children's index!
Ladies and gentlemen browsing the internet, the Children's Index is a new database being created for one purpose: To track every single British human being from the day they are born or earlier.
It will basically function like an Identity database, only this database will make it disastrous for any child to make a mistake - ever.
The background:A young girl called Victoria Climbié died in 2000 after abuse and it is believed this death could have been prevented if the government departments had actually shared information and been more diligent. Of course it would be stupid to mention that one of the reasons the civil servants didn't flag up the issue was because they didn't want to be labelled racist.
The proposal:The Children's Index aims to collate all data collected about children into one central database. This includes NHS records, school reports, incidents with the police, involvement with nurseries/nannies and 40 other bits of information that will be available to approximately 200000 civil servants.
However the database is also going to be used to detect potential future criminals before they are born by looking at the criminal history of a particular family.
The risks:Ok, at this point you may be thinking something like "Yikes! That's bad, but if it helps protect children..."
Yet this database will expose children to more risks than before:
First of all the 200000 civil servants how many are going to abuse the system? How many will sell the information to paedophiles? How many are paedophiles?
Secondly what happens if you are born into a family with a criminal background? You are then condemned for life.
Third what if the criteria changes from criminal activity to terrorist potential or political activist or anybody who disagrees with the party.
Fourth what if you are arrested by the police (which can now be for anything at all e.g. hanging around an area, or being in a gang, or even looking at a policeman funny). In addition to them taking a DNA sample and placing you on a police database you'd also be marked on the Children's Index as having contact with the police.
Fifth what if civil servants add 2 and 2 and get 5? The powers of the parent will be significantly weakened, whilst the powers of the state will be considerably increased.
Sixth how long will the database information be held and used for and will it be combined with adult databases or even form the future adult database?
Seventh the Children's Index will not contain details on the children of any wealthy families such as politicians and celebrities (so much for socialism) and this is presumably because the database will be prone to weakness from the outset.
Eighth it breaches international human rights laws.
Concerned?Your not alone! A report will shortly arrive outlining the serious issues this database will cause. When this arrives the issues should be better publicised.
Until that time I recommend reading:
NO2ID DareToKnowDatabaseMasterClass and
Archrightsand the following news articles for more information:
Celebrity children will get database privacyChildren's Index will only devalue parentsChannel 4 video: UK children's database unlawfulDatabase shields celebrity childrenLabels: Human Rights, My philosophy, Politics, Privacy
"Gate Britain" part 2: The letter
I am pleased to announce that I have sent a letter to Douglas Alexander about the issues raised in the previous posts
here and
here.
Below is a transcript. I will of course update the blog with any feedback I recieve and I hope it has a positive impact.
"To Douglas Alexander,
I am writing in response to an article by "The Mirror" which discusses requests by MPs for you to take action to address the issues of congestion, pollution and global warming. I am concerned that the policies being proposed are both inherently negative and also dangerous to the long-term economic prosperity of Britain.
Firstly according to "
The Mirror (
archived version)"
you proposed to add level of toll roads and congestion charging zones to large parts of the UK. However unlike in London there are many locations where there is no viable public transport alternative for business commuters. This means that the charge instantly becomes a transport tax. Only the wealthiest will be able to afford to travel and the rate of inflation will soar. The United Kingdom economy is almost entirely focused on tertiary and qua-tertiary sectors and if the costs rise too high, footloose businesses will relocate even more, forcing unemployment up.
Instead your policy should focus on speeding up journey times, improving public transport services and pricing them competitively against the car to promote usage.
People need to travel and your job is to facilitate and assist people in achieving this.
The article then discusses plans to increase taxation on vehicles that release more CO2. I accept that this is not entirely a bad idea but once again your policy is incomplete. Where is your policy on getting cleaner biofuels into UK petrol stations? Why has the Labour government increased the rate of tax on biofuels to the same as levels on regular petrol? Why have you not demanded that car manufacturers offer cars powered by renewal energy? The article states you have pledged 10 million into the technology for toll boths and that by the next election the Labour party will have passed laws on this. Instead of pursuing this quick fix tax policy why not create a legacy of your own by addressing some of the above questions.
At this point in the article I was baffled by a statement "They also want 70mph speed limits on motorways and trunk roads cut or rigorously enforced to cut pollution." Cutting speed limits, road narrowing, and generally slowing traffic down does not cut pollution, it increases it. Using more eco-friendly engines or cutting down the number of motorists may help, but considering we are talking about the motorways where people make mostly essential, long distance journeys, all lowering the speed limit would achieve is decreasing the capacity of the road network and increase journey times; another negative policy.
Raise the speed limit along motorways and other areas where there are few pedestrians and decrease them to very low levels when cars are in close proximity to pedestrians such as along high streets and near schools and accident blackspots, especially at certain times of the day to reflect road conditions. Use common sense. Just slowing traffic down is not a sustainable long term policy, and in reality highlights failures at all levels of government in managing traffic. People do not respect the current speed limits because the transport department does not respect people.
Bob Roberts continues by addressing your policy on road charging which it is claimed will help reduce congestion by reducing the number of journeys people make. However is your department being manipulated? I believe the long-term aim of the Labour party is to use road charging to track people by satellite by making it compulsory for everyone to have a black box in their car, giving the state the ability to monitor exactly who is where. Also in your reply you cannot state: "There will be protection against abuse" because as we have seen with virtually all previous intrusive legislation, the Labour party extends it and removes safeguards. And what happens if a party such as the BNP come to power?! If you value privacy and the ability to travel without being recorded oppose this legislation.
The final aspect of the article I will address is the airline fuel tax. Alternative engines and Biofuels appear to be the ideal answer. Do you have the courage to implement a positive transport policy for the remainder of your time in office?
Thank you for reading and I eagerly await your reply,
Caesar
(http://unlimitedjargon.blogspot.com)"
Labels: Politics, Privacy
"GATE BRITAIN" warning from The Mirror
What is the concentration of Co2 in the atmosphere?Two days ago I described some of the
issues facing motorists and the public about cars.
Today "The Mirror" is running an article called
"Pay-as-you-go roads vision" The article basically states that if the transport secretary gets his way Toll Gates will start emerging at various locations across the UK, drivers of higher polluting vehicles will face a significant tax hike, speed limits along motorways will be lowered in an effort to "cut pollution" (maybe I should be getting more vitamins or something because that doesn't make sense to me), more congestion charging zones will be added and satellite road charging will be introduced along with various other measures.
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! None of those measures are positive. Sure it may stop people from travelling and increase inflation, erode more of our privacy and make driving more difficult, but in the long term, those measures will just turn into a not so stealthy tax on freedom.
If you haven't already, check out my
previous post on the subject where I offer suggestions for dealing with pollution and congestion. Douglas Alexander is rapidly becoming a target for a new letter!!
"As of 2006, the earth's atmosphere is about 0.038% by volume (381 µL/L or ppmv) or 0.057% by weight CO2." From wikipediaLabels: Politics, Privacy
Tor: surf anonymously
Find the missing word: book ____ holeIn the UK Labour passed the RIP Act in 2000. This essentially allows our security services to snoop on all our web communications. All ISPs by law are required to log every site visited by each of their customers. Furthermore under the terms of this bill, you must surrender any encryption keys or passwords/passphrases used to protect emails or risk a prison sentence; even if you forget or lose them it becomes your responsibility to prove this e.g. guilty until proven innocent.
However all is not lost. I will discuss using encryption in a later post, but today I am going to focus on Tor.
Tor is a small program that allows you to surf the internet without giving your true IP address to any website. It even goes beyond a proxy and prevents your ISP from seeing what information you are viewing. Essentially whilst you can clear out cookies and erase your temporary files, this program actually gives you real protection against the problems of the web.
To get started have a look at
tor.eff.org/ where the developers offer an excellent explanation of the way Tor works and how to set it up.
Once you have Tor running, you'll notice several problems. Firstly the speed issues. Browsing the internet on a slow connection is like watching a film freeze and stop playing every few seconds. Very frustrating. There is little that can be done about this, and this is perhaps the single largest limitation to Tor. Your fantastic broadband connection will be reduced to dial-up.
You will also realise that without javascript,java, flash, shockwave and various other plugins disabled, websites will have another way of determining your IP address. Additionally I suggest being careful with cookies. This is a big blow because basically it is limiting what you can do massively.
What you end up with is a connection that is very slow, awkward to use and on top of that several sites block Tor servers. Its a big sacrifice for peace of mind.
Sadly the Tor software is now essential to privacy for anyone living in Europe, North America, Canada, China, Australia.... and the list goes on.
Answer=worm: bookworm and wormhole. Labels: Privacy, Technology
