Atu XVIII

Change of Address

noreply@blogger.com (Trevor) — Fri, 23 May 2008 08:41:00 +0000

After a period of hiatus I've just relaunched this blog in a new WordPress powered form. You can find it at:

http://trevor-mendham.com/atuxviii/wp/

This version will remain for archive purposes.

Scotland Opposes ID Cards

noreply@blogger.com (Trevor) — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 18:08:00 +0000

I almost missed this in the Christmas build up:

Last week the Scottish Parliament passed motion S3M-1017 which restated the country's opposition to Identity Cards and other Westminster government attacks on civil liberties. The motion as passed reads:

That the Parliament believes that the fundamental liberties enjoyed by generations of our citizens must not be eroded; welcomes the commitment by the previous Scottish Executive that ID cards would not be needed to access devolved services and its proportionate position on DNA retention; is concerned at the threat to civil liberties from the UK Government's expensive and unworkable proposal to introduce compulsory ID cards; believes that the Scottish Government should not put citizens' privacy at risk by allowing the UK ID database to access personal information held by the Scottish Government, local authorities or other devolved public agencies; therefore calls on the Scottish Government to ensure that all data protection procedures comply with the principles of data protection, namely that personal information must be fairly and lawfully processed, processed for limited purposes, adequate, relevant and not excessive, accurate and up to date, not kept for longer than necessary, processed in line with individuals' rights, secure and not transmitted to other countries without adequate protection, and that audit of data under its jurisdiction is independent of government and accountable to the Parliament; further calls on the Scottish Government to review plans for Scottish Citizens Accounts on the basis of these principles, and takes the view that there should be no blanket retention of DNA samples and that the Assistant Information Commissioner for Scotland should have specific powers to carry out spot checks on the compliance by Scottish government agencies and bodies with the Data Protection Act 1998.

You can read the debate here.

The passing of this motion by our democratically elected parliament is very welcome. Unfortunately at the end of the day it's little more than a token thorn in the side of the Westminster government's plans. Even if the Scottish government chooses not to cooperate, we in Scotland will still be numbered, filed and monitored in the same way as the rest of the UK.

You might like to connect with NO2ID Scotland on Myspace.

Another Three Million Records Lost by UK Government

noreply@blogger.com (Trevor) — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:47:00 +0000

Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly has had to announce another massive data loss by the UK government: personal details of three million driving test applicants have gone missing.

Kelly has noted that no bank details were in the missing data. That's not the point. This was confidential information and the government had a duty of care to protect it.

Kelly has noted that compared to the amount of data the government handle the scale of this loss is small. That's not the point. To an individual whose privacy has been breached such statistics are irrelevant.

Kelly has noted improved procedures for the future. That's not the point. Even with the best procedures, accidents will happen.

The real point of this latest revelation is that no government, no matter how well meaning, can be trusted to protect individual privacy. We should be tightening rules on internal government data sharing rather than relaxing them. The government should be collecting less data on us, not more.

And, of course, the government must permanently abandon all plans for compulsory national identity cards and a huge, intrusive National Identity Register.

Poll: ID Card Opponents Outnumber Supporters

noreply@blogger.com (Trevor) — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 09:40:00 +0000

When the government first proposed compulsory Identity Cards they claimed 80% public support. This support has fallen away as people have learned more about the huge, intrusive National Identity Register (NIR) behind the scheme.

The recent mass loss of personal information seems to have been the final straw for many people. The Telegraph reports 48% of people now opposed vs only 43% in favour.

With Brown's government under so much pressure in so many areas this is the time to convince them to drop this unpopular scheme.

What can you do? Write to your representatives, write to the newspapers, join NO2ID and sign the plegde.

Another UK Data Debacle

noreply@blogger.com (Trevor) — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 12:18:00 +0000

Following the recent loss of sensitive information on child benefit claimants news has emerged of another government breach of privacy. This time it seems that the information wasn't lost but simply forgotten about.

Reports say that a contractor working for the Department of Work and Pensions had personal data on thousands of benefits claimants stored on computer discs. That was completely legitimate, she needed them for her job. But when she stopped working for the DWP she forgot to give the - unencrypted - discs back. And nobody at the DWP seems to have realised she still had them. Nobody ever asked her to return this sensitive personal information - and that was over a year ago.

Some people will attempt to downplay this incident on the grounds that the compromised information didn't contain bank details. That's not the point. This was personal information and the DWP had a duty to protect it. Their failure in that duty shows that this government cannot be trusted to safeguard our private data.

It is the nature of all governments to try and protect their own privacy whilst invading that of the people. This doesn't have to be sinister, it can be due to incompetence, neglect or in the name of improving efficiency.

Which is one reason why no government can be trusted with a huge, intrusive National Identity Register

Scare Tactics to Bolster ID Cards

noreply@blogger.com (Trevor) — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:10:00 +0000

Sky News is running an interview with Home Secretary Jacqui Smith. In it she warns that the number of UK terror plots is rising. She talks of the chilling possibility of a dirty bomb being exploded in a city centre.

The threat from terrorism is indeed serious. People need to be careful. But that's been true for ages. So why this warning just now?

Would it be overly cynical to suggest that the timing has something to do with the recent data loss fiasco? And the growing public pressure to scrap compulsory National Identity Cards?

Well... The same package from Sky goes on to show footage of government research labs where scientists are working on ways to protect us: facial recognition, fingerprinting and other privacy invading biometrics. This, we are told, is not stock footage but a rare glimpse of secret premises - so why did Smith feel the need to authorise such filming just now?

Just in case anyone missed the point, Smith later goes on to explicitly try to defend the ID Card scheme and the huge, intrusive National Identity Register (NIR) on which it will be based.

Yes, the threat from terrorism is real and serious. ID Cards won't prevent terrorism.

To respond to the threat by playing the fear card and turning Britain into a surveillance state is to hand victory to the terrorists.

Tell your MP.

Labour Donor Wanted Privacy

noreply@blogger.com (Trevor) — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:47:00 +0000

The Brown government is under massive pressure over a party funding scandal. The man at the centre of the row, David Abrahams, has explained that his actions were intended to protect his privacy.

What planet is he living on?

Worrying about privacy whilst supporting Labour is like worrying about the environment whilst dumping chemical waste into a river.

The Labour party is one of the biggest threats to personal privacy that we've seen for generations. Over the last ten years we've seen massive expansion of the national DNA database, a snoopers' charter for civil servants and even fingerprinting of kids at school. This government also wants to impose compulsory National Identity Cards and a huge, intrusive National Identity register.

The government doesn't even properly protect the information it collects: HMRC lost discs containing the personal information on almost every family in Britain. The discs still haven't been found and the information is still out there. Somewhere.

Abrahams is backing the wrong horse.

ID Cards: Blunkett Defends Threatened Scheme

noreply@blogger.com (Trevor) — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 12:38:00 +0000

David Blunkett has written a letter to The Times in which he tries again to defend the unpopular ID Card scheme. His letter suggests that he has still not understood the concerns of objectors like myself.

Blunkett contends that ID Cards will make us safer because even if personal data is lost (as it will be - accidents happen) then we will be safer because biometrics will protect us against identity theft. That shows a touching faith in technology, an apparent assumption that biometrics will never fail or be cracked. They will be, it's only a matter of time. Blunkett also fails to address how biometrics will be of any use when talking to a call centre outsourced to India.

Blunkett also repeats his claim that "The database is simply about identity". Nonsense. The database will contain dozens of pieces of personal information together with an audit trail that will amount to a complete record of our lives. As such it represents a massive invasion of privacy. It is completely unacceptable for any government to demand that much information on the people it is supposed to serve.

All this comes before even considering the governments desire to encourage greater data sharing. Data sharing that will be facilitated by everyone having a unique National Identity Register Number to potentially act as a common key.

The threat comes not from ID Cards but from the National Identity Register (NIR) and the threat this poses to individual privacy and hence freedom. Whatever Blunkett's initial ideas, the database as now planned is about much, much more than identity.

The NIR is dangerous and must be scrapped.

Final Blow For ID Card Scheme?

noreply@blogger.com (Trevor) — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 09:36:00 +0000

Chancellor Alistair Darling admitted yesterday that Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has lost personal records of 25 million people - including children. Shadow Chancellor George Osborne said:

"This will be the final blow for the ambitions of the government for the national ID cards scheme — they simply cannot be trusted with people's personal details"

I never expected to agree so strongly with a Tory front bencher.

In the case of this debacle, there is no suggestion of conspiracy or ill intent. It appears to just have been a case of human error. These things happen.

That's the point: these things happen.

If they happen with the benefits records of 25 million people (7.25 million families), how much more often will they happen with the detailed records of all 60 million adults in the UK?

The proposed ID Card scheme will be backed by a vast, intrusive National Identity Register (NIR) that will dwarf the benefits system. The NIR will hold dozens of pieces of personal information on every adult, including an audit trail that amounts to a record of that person's life. Although the NIR won't directly contain bank details, it will contain more than enough information to enable Identity Theft.

No government can be trusted with that much information.

The NIR will be a target for terrorists and organised crime. The government assures us that it will be protected by law, regulation and security. However yesterday's announcement shows that none of this can be enough. Sooner or later accidents will happen.

The only way to prevent NIR data getting into the wrong hands is to prevent the NIR ever being built. The government must now face reality and repeal the Identity Cards Act 2006.

Time to write a few letters.

HMRC has set up a Child Benefit Helpline on 0845 302 1444

Taking Liberties

noreply@blogger.com (Trevor) — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 16:38:00 +0000

Last night I watched Taking Liberties on DVD. It's an important documentary that should be watched by everyone in the UK. People in America could also learn what they might have in store.

The film starts with footage of the disgraceful Fairford incident where police "coach-napped" peaceful anti-war protestors and breached their rights.

It then goes back to 9/11 and proceeds to document the way that the Blair government has systematically eroded basic human rights. As a civil liberty advocate I knew most of what was shown but there were a few points that were eye-openers even for me.

The film makes frequent parallels between Blair's Britain and measures introduced in countries such as Nazi Germany and Rwanda. As with the famous NO2ID Blair/Hitler advert the film doesn't say Blair is like Hitler, merely that he is building the tools of totalitarianism.

Of course some people will say that I should be happy I live in a country where I have the freedom to watch a film like Taking Liberties.

I am.

What worries me is that future generations may wake up one day to find they no longer have that freedom.

US Privacy Threatened by Redefinition

noreply@blogger.com (Trevor) — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 10:31:00 +0000

The US government appears to be taking a leaf out of Tony Blair's book: if something gets in your way, redefine it out of existence. In this case the target is privacy.

In the US - unlike the UK - most people still understand the importance of privacy. They object to being watched, tracked and listened to. Privacy is also (arguably) protected by the constitution.

So Donald Kerr, Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, suggests Americans should redefine privacy. According to AP Kerr says that "Privacy can no longer mean anonymity".

Clever. That sounds like a trivial technicality. In reality, anonymity is at the heart of privacy. Privacy protects knowledge of who does what. Both pillars are important.

Almost everything we do - from buying a book to making a phone call to running a bath - leaves some trace, the "what". If this is connected with the "who" then privacy vanishes.

Yes, I know that these activities aren't truly anonymous now. Someone usually has a record. However at least there is an assumption that these different records won't be accessible to and collated by government. There is an assumption of anonymity except where there is a specific "need to know". Kerr's redefinition would remove that assumption and, by extension, our privacy.

Most worryingly, Kerr goes onto say that privacy should be redefined to mean that "government and businesses properly safeguards people's private communications and financial information."

In other words: "Trust us, we're the government".

Privacy from government is the most important privacy of all. It's essential for a free society.

Changing the language to get rid of awkward words is a technique used in George Orwell's 1984. The Big Brother government introduces Newspeak, where the language has been altered to make dissent impossible.

You can bet that Newspeak has no word for privacy.

Brown To Scrap ID Cards?

noreply@blogger.com (Trevor) — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 08:35:00 +0000

The Sunday Mirror today has an encouraging report headlined Brown Scraps I.D. Card Plans. According to the Mirror:

"Gordon Brown is to abandon controversial plans to introduce compulsory ID cards for all.
"Instead, the Prime Minister will focus on tightening up existing anti-terror laws and on new measures to be unveiled in Tuesday's Queen's Speech."

It sounds great, but don't start celebrating yet. This is just one report by one newspaper quoting "Whitehall sources". It's not an official position, probably it's Brown spin doctor floating the idea to see what reaction it gets.

We know how some people react - expect gnashing of teeth from certain tabloids and ex-ministers. We mustn't let them dominate this story, we need to cheer louder than they wail.

So we need to make sure Brown gets the message that abandoning ID Cards will be very popular - and win votes. I for one would be willing to reconsider voting Labour if this report turns out to be true.

What we really need is for a government to repeal the Identity Cards Act 2006 and abandon the National Identity Register (NIR). Until that happens, putting compulsory ID Cards on the back burner is a big step in the right direction.

That's what I'm going to tell Gordon Brown. What about you?

Nothing To Fear?

noreply@blogger.com (Trevor) — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 16:15:00 +0000

The London Metropolitan Police have been found guilty of breaking Health & Safety laws and endangering the public in the case of Jean Charles de Menezes. De Menzes was the innocent Brazilian mistaken by police for a suicide bomber in the wake of the attempted 21/7/2005 terrorist attacks. Anti-terrorist officers chased the unarmed man into a tube station and shot him dead.

Health and Safety may seem to be strange grounds on which to bring a case such as this but it was the only legal avenue available to the de Menezes family.

I for one have no doubt that all those involved in this case acted with the highest motives. The individual police officers believed that they were facing a would-be suicide bomber. They believed they were risking their own lives to protect the public.

They were wrong.

The police had the best of intentions yet got things wrong and killed an innocent man. De Menzes had nothing to hide yet, tragically, everything to fear.

At the end of the day the police are human. No matter how much intelligence and technology they have available, they make mistakes like the rest of us.

The tragic case of de Menzes is a reminder of why we must resist calls for more and greater police and state powers - powers such as extended detention without charge and compulsory ID Cards. Such powers may not have fatal consequences but could still ruin lives.

Extreme power leads to extreme abuse, even if that abuse is accidental rather than corrupt. Excessive police and state power is something for all innocent people to fear.

UK Snap Election Ruled Out

noreply@blogger.com (Trevor) — Sat, 06 Oct 2007 16:12:00 +0000

Gordon Brown has ruled out a snap election this autumn and is unlikely to call one next spring either. He's denied that this is because the latest opinion polls show the Tories 6% above Labour - but nobody's going to believe him.

So the Brown bounce has run out of steam, to mix a metaphor. He is now facing the prospect of not getting a majority in the next election whenever it happens. How can he change minds and win the votes of people like me?

Simple: drop plans for ID Cards and a huge, intrusive National Identity Register (NIR).

It's clear that ID Cards have no positive political value. Few people will switch to Labour because they like the idea, many of us will switch from Labour because we find the scheme totally unacceptable.

If you feel the same way and have a Labour MP, this might be a good time to write and remind him or her that there's now time for them to change Brown's mind, get Blair's dangerous ID Card scheme dropped and win back your vote.

Cameron: The Lesser Evil?

noreply@blogger.com (Trevor) — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 09:07:00 +0000

David Cameron gave an impressive performance at the Tory conference yesterday. For once he actually looked like a serious conviction politician rather than than a Tony Blair wannabe. Unfortunately the content of his speech was less impressive.

For all Cameron's claims to the middle ground, his speech contained many of the old Tory standbys: reduced regulation of business, more private schools, welfare cuts, more people in jail and opposition to the Human Rights Act. Cameron is still true blue at heart.

And yet... Cameron opposes Labour's scheme to impose compulsory ID Cards and a huge, intrusive National Identity Register (NIR). He's committed to scrapping ID Cards and to defending the right to trial by jury.

Civil liberties - freedom - is the most important issue of all. Cameron has got it right, Brown is wrong. There is no way I will ever vote for any party that supports ID Cards and the NIR.

It's hardly surprising that so few people in Britain bother to vote. The party system means you're offered job lot of policies and values, it's an all or nothing proposition. Yet I'm one of those who stubbornly insists on voting anyway. So if Gordon Brown does hold a snap general election in November, what will I do?

It's difficult. I don't totally agree with the Lib-Dems either, and they can't possibly win. A hung parliament with them having the balance of power would probably be my preferred option. But what if I lived in a constituency where our voting system means the only real choices are Labour or Tory?

Let's assume the sitting Labour MP wasn't one of the ID rebels. What would I do?

With heavy heart I have to say that I'd vote Tory to keep Labour out. It would be the lesser evil. My hope would be that the Tories would repeal the Identity Cards Act 2006 after which we could vote them out again.

So if there is an election next month then it looks like I'll be pushing for "Anyone But Labour".

Local Councils Get Phone Snoop Powers

noreply@blogger.com (Trevor) — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 16:29:00 +0000

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?

Letter Bombs: Anti-Surveillance Protester Guilty

noreply@blogger.com (Trevor) — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 15:36:00 +0000

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.

Fancy A Drink? First Prove You're Not A Junkie

noreply@blogger.com (Trevor) — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:33:00 +0000

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?

Feed the Birds (500 Quid a Bag)

noreply@blogger.com (Trevor) — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:58:00 +0000

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.

Big Brother Cameras Proposed For UK Homes

noreply@blogger.com (Trevor) — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 10:21:00 +0000

When campaigning against ID Cards and the National Identity Register (NIR) I've frequently used the following as a hypothetical example: Most child abuse happens at home, so why not put CCTV cameras in every home to protect kids? After all, if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear.

That was intended as an extreme, ridiculous example to counteract the naive "nothing to hide..." brigade. I never, ever expected it to become real. Seems like I was the one being naive.

The Herald reports on a proposal to install CCTV cameras in the homes of drug addicts - all, of course, for the sake of the children.

It needs to be stressed that this is just the idea of one academic - Professor Neil McKeganey of the centre for Drug Misuse Research at Glasgow University - but the fact that it's even being discussed is worrying. I'm sure McKeganey has the best of motives, but his idea is dangerous. As is his argument:

"What price should we put on our privacy? The question is whether we are prepared to say the principle of the privacy of family life is more important than that of child protection. If we accept that privacy is the most important principle then there will be many more tragic cases."

Now I know what some people are thinking: these are addicts, they're dangerous to the kids, it won't affect me. That's always the way it starts: target the nasty "them", the decent "us" have nothing to fear.

Drug addicts first, who next? People diagnosed as suffering from depression or borderline personality disorders? Anyone who was themself abused as a child? People who smoke? Or who eat too much and might over-feed their kids?

First they came for the junkies...

Remember, most child abuse happens in the home. So once a sufficient critical mass of people have CCTV installed it will be a "natural" next step to put them in every home. All, of course, for the sake of the children.

Could it ever happen? I'd like to think not, but give Britain's surveillance state mentality I can't rule it out.

I remember when mass DNA testing began - it was only for those in the vicinity of particularly nasty and hard to solve murders. The concept expanded until today we are looking at a de facto national DNA database.

CCTV cameras in the streets were initially introduced in areas where there was a history of trouble. Today they're everywhere, even quiet villages.

Only criminal suspects used to be fingerprinted, today nightclubs are fingerprinting customers. Soon the government want us all fingerprinted and numbered for the NIR.

That's the way it goes with freedom: give an inch and they take it all. To protect our own liberties we must protect those of everyone - including junkies. No private home should ever have state CCTV installed.

If the SNP want to prove that they really are better than Labour, the Scottish Executive should publicly condemn and reject McKeganey's proposal.

Britain Gambols Towards A Police State

noreply@blogger.com (Trevor) — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 09:08:00 +0000

Henry Porter wrote an excellent article in yesterday's Observer in which he said:

"[...] it is worth underlining one sentence that needs to be written in neon across every town centre: Britain is on the way to becoming a police state.
"Writing about the crisis of liberty in Britain, I have been careful not to use these words, but today I see no other conclusion to draw."

Like Porter I've tried to avoid calling the UK a "police state". Britain is clearly not a police state according to the traditional definition. Yet the similarities are many.

In Britain today we have (deep breath): routine monitoring of our daily lives and communications, 20% of the world's CCTV cameras, over 3000 new criminal offences created in ten years, vetting for all manner of jobs and other activities, fingerprinting of children in schools, increasing use of summary justice, erosion of the presumption of innocence, restrictions on the right to trial by jury, internment without charge, the threat of compulsory national ID Cards... Some people also believe the UK government has been complicit in the US policy of "extraordinary rendition" - which, in a South American dictatorship, would have been called "forced disappearance".

The main difference between the UK and a police state is lack of actual oppression: the authorities don't need to use force, we "baa" happily as we're shorn of our rights.

How has this happened? Partly because of the piecemeal approach the authorities have taken, introducing repressive laws one small step at a time so that most people haven't even noticed. In a country that thinks Big Brother is a jolly TV show, civil liberties just aren't as interesting as celebrity lifestyles.

Where there is any resistance the fear card has been played again and again. Since 911 it has mainly been fear of terrorism - a valid fear but not one which justifies the self-destruction of our way of life. Other weapons of fear include illegal immigrants and identity fraudsters along with the paedophiles who apparently hide behind every tree.

These objects of fear are used like sheepdogs, gently herding an ovine populace away from the wide fields of freedom and into the restricted pen of a de facto police state.

Britain isn't a police state for one simple reason: it doesn't need to be. We're collaborating in our own oppression.

Of course the sheepdog analogy suggests a shepherd running everything according to a master plan. I'm not paranoid enough to believe that - and not naive enough to rule it out.

civil liberties UK politics ukpolitics

Gordon Brown To Play Fear Card

noreply@blogger.com (Trevor) — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:33:00 +0000

A report in today's Mirror suggests that Gordon Brown is planning for a snap election next spring or even this autumn. The memo from party strategist Philip Gould sets out a 10 point plan for Brown to build public confidence with a "strategy of audacious advance" and to use a "shock and awe" approach to win a snap election.

It seems that Brown has been following the advice. In particular Gould says:

"The cluster of issues around security - crime, terror, immigration and so on - are now the dominant group of issues. I suspect that will be still the case by the next election."

In other words: play the fear card. If the public are sufficiently scared then they'll accept all sorts of oppressive measures and vote in favour of restrictions on their freedom.

Brown's authoritarian approach is reflected in his continued support for compulsory ID Cards and a National Identity Register (NIR) along with his desire to introduce extended internment without charge and hints of extra restrictions at unspecified "crowded places". He's also appointed Jacqui Smith as Home Secretary - a woman who reportedly chooses David "Big" Blunkett as her role model and rapidly rejects any suggestion of liberalism.

Brown may be more likeable than Tony Blair on a personal level, but inside the velvet glove the ex-Chancellor's fist is still made of iron. Brown is as much of a threat to civil liberties in the UK as was Blair.

The memo from Gould also says:

"You must start election planning early. We can't leave it late as we did last time. We must make a start."

That message is as important for anti-authoritarians as for Brown. If Brown is preparing for a snap election then we must start preparing to ensure that he loses.

Spread the word.

civil liberties Gordon Brown UK politics ukpolitics

Brown Calls For Consensus Against Freedom

noreply@blogger.com (Trevor) — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:27:00 +0000

It appears that Gordon Brown will be less gung-ho than Tony Blair in his erosion of our civil liberties, but just as determined.

The PM's National Security Statement to Parliament set out proposals for the forthcoming Counter Terrorism Bill. The language and style are very different to Blair, appearing much more conciliatory and making a big play for "consensus". Such "consensus" could become a dangerous trap.

There were definitely some good things in Brown's speech including the setting up of a border police force and the possible use of intercept evidence in court. I particularly welcome the "hearts and minds" suggestions such as the sponsoring of English speaking imams and teaching of citizenship in madrassas.

Unfortunately there were two major problems with Brown's speech which mean that in calling for a consensus against terrorism he is in effect calling for a consensus against freedom.

Brown's first error was his continued support for imposing biometric ID Cards on innocent British citizens, along with hints at greater data sharing. This is now being wrapped up in the friendly sounding phrase "ID security within our own borders" yet it remains identity control by the state. ID Cards are the greatest threat to privacy and liberty in 21st century Britain. An ID Card is no less than a licence to live.

Brown also proposed a "further overview" of how to protect key infrastructure such as trains. I for one strongly suspect that this overview will suggest ID checks on key rail routes. That would create yet another problem for innocent people that ID Cards would "solve". It would also be yet another step towards ID Cards as internal passports.

What will probably grab tomorrow's headlines was not Brown's support for ID Cards but his ideas on detention without charge. Brown suggested increasing the length of time that UK police can hold terrorist suspects without charge to 56 days.

56 days may not sound much. Until you realise it's eight weeks - that's almost two months of detention and interrogation without charge.

Brown did at least consult with Liberty, although he made it obvious that he didn't approve of their suggestion that such internment would require the declaration of a state of emergency. Brown's preferred option appears to be to allow two months detention without charge as long as there is parliamentary oversight.

That's not acceptable. Oppression remains oppression when overseen by Parliament.

Brown ended his speech by stating a desire to create an "all-party consensus that will extend into every community of our country".

That sent a chill down my spine. Will those of us who support civil liberties be branded as terrorist sympathisers for seeking to break the "consensus"? No government would risk making such a direct accusation - but certain tabloids wouldn't hesitate for a second. And they will receive at least implicit support from certain authoritarian politicians.

Expect a ramping up of the smear campaign against civil libertarians.

So be it. Under no circumstances will I be part of any consensus against freedom.

Gordon Brown UK politics ukpolitics

Brown Blows It

noreply@blogger.com (Trevor) — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 12:49:00 +0000

I was planning to make a post congratulating Gordon Brown on his plan for constitutional change. Unfortunately that's been overshadowed by his disastrous performance at his first PMQs.

Brown had the ideal opportunity to break with Blair's plan to impose compulsory National Identity Cards and an invasive National Identity Register (NIR). Asked by Cameron about a border police force Brown could have said that in the light recent events the best use of resources was being re-evaluated. Unfortunately Brown failed to do this and chose to give his strong support to the dangerous ID scheme.

All Brown's positive constitutional reforms will count for nothing against ID Cards and the NIR. Their introduction will bring about a change in the relationship between citizen and state that sees the government issuing us with a licence to live.

That would be a constitutional change for which he would never be forgiven.

Gordon Brown ID Cards Identity Cards NIR UK politics ukpolitics

London Bombing Foiled

noreply@blogger.com (Trevor) — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 09:13:00 +0000

Congratulations and thanks to all those - be they civilian, police or intelligence services - who were involved in finding and making safe the Haymarket bomb. Had it exploded it would have been an appalling atrocity. The thought makes me shudder all the more because I know Haymarket well from when I lived in London.

Every time the terrorists succeed in murder the authoritarians say it strengthens the argument in favour of repressive measures such as ID Cards.

Every time a terrorist attack is foiled without the use of repressive measures such as ID Cards it strengthens the argument against them.

Technorati: London ID cards UK politics ukpolitics