If you live in the UK then you've just lost another significant chunk of your privacy.

The Mail reports that as of tomorrow your phone records can be accessed - without your knowledge or consent - by a host of organisations including the tax office, the Food Standards Agency, the Department of Health, the Immigration Service, the Gaming Board and the Charity Commission. And, of course, the local council.

That's a lot of people who can now legally snoop on your records. They won't be able to listen in to your calls but they will be able to find out when and where you last called an ex-partner, a confidential support service or a premium rate kinky chat line.

This massive increase in government snooping powers was sanctioned by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith. She has used a statutory instrument to enact the controversial Data Retention (EC Directive) Regulations. At around the same date Smith signed another statutory instrument meaning that from tomorrow the government can force you to hand over your decryption keys under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA).

Why does any of this technical legal stuff matter? After all, you've done nothing wrong. You've got nothing to hide. You're not a terrorist, a criminal or subversive.

It's a matter of trust. You may trust this government not to abuse these wide-ranging powers - will you trust the next one? And the one after that?

Will your children trust the government in twenty years time?

Labels: civil liberties, EC, privacy, uk politics, ukpolitics

School caretaker Miles Cooper has been found guilty of a two week letter bomb campaign earlier this year. He sent seven letter bombs that injured eight people including a pregnant woman.

The establishments Cooper targeted included organisations involved in government surveillance of the UK populace. He was angry at the way Britain has become a surveillance society where we are "one of the most watched societies on the planet". He had previously written to the House of Lords objecting to plans for compulsory ID cards.

Speaking as someone who argues for civil liberties and against surveillance I want to say that there is no justification Cooper's actions. Despite the strength of my opposition to the surveillance state I would never support such attacks. Violence against individuals is unacceptable.

There is a danger here that some on the authoritarian side of the arguments will, at least by implication, suggest that Cooper is representative of all civil liberty advocates. He's not and we need to make that clear

Cooper was right to be angry at the rise of the surveillance state. I share his concerns.

He was wrong to risk harming individuals. I totally condemn his actions.

Labels: civil liberties, uk politics, ukpolitics

I thought it was bad enough when pubs and clubs in the UK started to insist on fingerprinting customers. Things have got worse quicker than even I could have imagined: the Oxford Mail reports that visitors to a Bicester pub were subjected to mandatory drug testing before being allowed entry.

Customers wishing to drink at the Litten Tree pub last Friday were forced to undergo drug testing before being allowed entrance into the pub. This was apparently part of a police operation aimed at tackling violent street crime - which is ironic as the testing for illegal drugs did nothing to prevent people getting blind drunk then rolling out into the streets.

The "logic" used by the police in discussing this operation would be funny if it wasn't scary. According to Detective Sergeant Steve Duffy of Banbury CID:

"We swab people's hands and then that swab is placed into the equipment and it gives a reading of the level of drug residue.

"If it's above the background level then we use the equipment to give us the power to search - it gives us reasonable suspicion."

So they're using universal low level drug testing in order to provide reasonable suspicion?!? What happened to reasonable suspicion before testing?

Nobody should ever be subjected to drug testing unless there is reasonable suspicion first. This sort of testing completely reverses the burden of proof - in order to enter the pub you have to prove you haven't been using illegal drugs. You become guilty unless proven innocent.

Customers who didn't want to be tested were told they couldn't enter the pub. Of course they could then simply go drink elsewhere, so some people will say "That's all right then".

It's not all right. These things start as occasional one-off events. Then they become more and more frequent until they're the norm instead of the exception. As Duffy said: "Bicester has no bigger problem than the rest of the country". So if it can happen there it can happen anywhere.

Will your local be next?

Labels: Bicester, civil liberties, drug testing, pubs

The BBC reports on a piece of idiocy I didn't know about: you can be fined 500 quid for feeding the pigeons in Trafalgar Square. Apparently a ban was put in place in 2003 and has now been extended to the Square's north terrace.

This is just madness. The pigeons are an integral part of the image of Trafalgar Square. London relies heavily on the tourist trade, it should be investing in iconic images such as these birds. Yes, they cause a mess - so go out and hire more cleaners.

Perhaps the local council could even set up a stall and sell bird food in the square - I reckon they'd get a lot more than tuppence a bag. Possibly even enough profit to pay for the extra cleaning, making everyone happy.

The real issue here isn't one of feeding pigeons, personally I can't stand the critters. This is simply yet another example of the authoritarian attitude that permeates so much of the UK today. Faced with a problem (pigeon droppings) the immediate reaction is to ban something rather than explore other options. That's wrong.

Restrictions on personal freedom are sometimes necessary, but should always be the last resort. Not the first.

Labels: London, uk politics, ukpolitics