Local Council use anti terror legislation to spy on ordinary family over school application

This is not the first time this blog has touched upon the UK’s sinister (but innocuous sounding), Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

Now don’t get me wrong - in this day and age there may be a place for some of the draconian measures within it. But only if kept under the tightest controls, left exclusively in the hands of the police and security services - and fiercely overseen and regulated.

As was predicted, this slapdash piece of state control legislation is being used by local councils - and who knows what other jumped up junior clerks, to spy and intrude upon ordinary people - on us.

It seems Poole Council are getting into the James Bond business, spying on school children and their parents. Petty beurocracy given powers far beyond their remit or capability.

If this act gives them the powers to do so, when it was railroaded through on the basis of countering terrorism, then it is simply yet more of New Labour’s Fascism-Lite (or maybe not so Lite anymore) at work; and deeply, morally, wrong. It should be repealed, or amended beyond recognition at the earliest opportunity.

It is part of the same mind set that uses so-called anti terror legislation and the police to violently eject and bar an 82 year old who speaks up for what they believe in from a party conference and heckled a minister. The same mindset that wants us all to have to carry ID cards to prove we have a government granted right to even exist.

It is supposed to be the other way around, we the citizen are supposed to grant the government the limited right to exist for around 4 years.

Make no mistake. If legislation exists it will, sooner or later, be used. None of us should countenance any legislation without keeping it in mind that it may be used - not as allegedly intended, or advertised, but on ordinary people.

Not just mad bombers, or criminals who ‘deserve it’ but people like you and me.

How long before they use this and other legislation to spy on you over something like your council tax, or a library book or parking ticket, for all we know they are already…

Is anyone listening to us?

Have you ever heard of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000? Have you any idea what it actually results in - in practice?

It means that in the UK A total of 653 state bodies have the power to intercept private communications – private communications including your’s.

This includes 474 Councils who only require a senior council officer to authorise the surveillance.

Many might regard this as sinister enough - and largely unnecessary given that wiretap evidence is not actually admissible in court.

The problem is these wanna-be big brothers are often unaccountable civil servants, absolutely renowned for their ability and competence ;-) You - know, the sort Government Ministers like to use as scapegoats.

In a nine month period, the Communications Commissioner, has found that 122 local authorities sought to obtain people's private communications, in more than 1,600 cases.

Scarily and possibly predictably, it turns out over 1,000 of all the bugging operations measured in that same period were flawed. Including instances where the phones of innocent people who had nothing to do with them were tapped by mistake.

So next time you pick up the phone keep in mind - If you phone someone who works in the same building as a suspected fly tipper then you may be being bugged by a council clerk. Even if you are just phoning a friend you may be being bugged, by mistake, by a council clerk.

Careful what you say…

Schedule introducing UK ID cards delayed

It is interesting to note that New Labour are planning to introduce the National ID card incrementally.

This seems to be one of their favourite ‘stealth’ methods. Apparently they are putting back the date where larger numbers of us will be forced to get them from 2010, until 2012 now.

They know it is un popular, and there is some resistance, so they are buying themselves an extra two years, in the hope attention fatigue will set in.

The technique, one they are fond of, is to introduce unpopular measures in small relatively imperceptible doses. First they Identify a relatively small group to apply whatever they are planning to. A group that does not include the majority of citizens and who preferably will not have the majority of the public’s particular sympathy.

In the case of HIPs it was houses with four bedrooms or over. “The Wealthy”, “Rich Toffs” – a classic hate group and target.

They are careful to avoid stirring people up by ensuring that even of the groups targeted only relatively small percentage are actually directly affected at any time. In this case those actually considering selling their homes.

Then they wait a while and take in another chunk of the population (say owners of three bedroom properties), repeating as necessary until they have everyone.

They are always careful to avoid stirring too much of the population up at once, in case it allows resistance to build to the point where the lethargic UK population will actually protest in significant numbers.

In the case of ID cards it will apparently be “Foreigners”, “Bogus Asylum Seekers”, “Economic Migrants”. They have chosen to target first. Currently they are to be targeted this year.

See if you can spot this technique being used elsewhere....

Big Brother really is watching you

In order to comply with an EU directive on the retention of phone data, this July, the UK Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, agreed a new law, under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 requiring phone companies to log every call, or text message, sent to and from every phone in Britain.

We should be concerned about this because it is effectively being imposed on the UK by a directive. It is being done under a law made up by the Government, not Parliament and then just slid in with little democratic oversight under a seven year old act.

The details logged include: The subscriber information, calls made, calls received and the location where the calls are made from.

We should be concerned about that because it is deeply intrusive. There will be the usual tired old excuses about if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear that the more naive and trusting old grannies actually believe, but this is yet another erosion of our privacy on the road to a total surveillance society.

Much of this information is in fact not restricted to the police, or security services as you might imagine.

No - It can be accessed by virtually any local authority, government department, body, or Quango who cares to. Including, but not limited to, the DSS, the Gaming Board, the Food Standards Authority and every District and County Council in the country. Around 652 public bodies in all.

The civil rights group Liberty are rightly concerned over this and so should everyone else be. Your local council can, if it wishes, unbeknown to you, build up profile of your personal relationships, on the basis of who you speak to and when you do it.

Make no mistake. Now these powers are there to be used, they will, sooner or later, be used. They are another nail in Liberty’s coffin.

UK Government s DNA database includes over 500,000 inaccurate records

It seems that Nu-Lab’s National DNA database now contains over 500,000 records with false or inaccurately recorded names.

Apparently some of the problems are caused by people fibbing to the police about their actual names. Whatever next? “It’s Michael Mouse, honest officer” ;-)

Given this, one has to wonder how many record have the wrong DNA profile attached, or other ghastly errors.

Civil rights group Liberty’s Director, Shami Chakrabarti, suggested that the problems with the database raised serious questions about the police’s unrestrained permanent fishing expedition drive to keep expanding the database to include those arrested for non criminal offences, such as dropping litter.

What next one wonders, walking on the cracks in the pavement? ;-)

A further cause for concern is that the database contains DNA profiles of around 150,000 children, a significant number having been arrested and then found to be innocent.

She pointed out that: "It is bad enough that we have a DNA database stuffed with innocents not charged with any offence” “Now it turns out we don't know the accuracy of the data. How many Postman Pats and Donald Ducks have entries on a system worthy of the Keystone Cops?"

Once you are on the system, even if arrested as a result of mistaken identity, your profile is never removed from the database.

It’s never likely to happen with the antidemocratic undertow in the way Government seems to operate these days, but the system needs to be radically overhauled, root and branch. With an independent system for expunging records, stringent limits as to when DNA data can be taken and provision for temporary records that are expunged after an investigation. Otherwise it is just another tool for a potential police state.

All these wonderful policing tools such as, ever more powerful computers, DNA databases and wall to wall CCTV...

It can not have been lost on some of NU-Labs ‘former’ Marxists, Trotskyists, etc., that if only the Soviet empire had been able to hang on, for just a few decades longer then the Berlin wall might well have fallen the other way and the Stasi could have been busy,, improving upon these new policing techniques.

ICANN may ban domain names to avoid causing offence

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ( ICANN ) was founded in 1988 by the US Government to take over regulating key aspects of the internet's technical architecture like domain names and IP addresses. It has had a troubled history.

A recent report from a working group within ICANN called for any new domain names to be carefully regulated demanding that names should be censored according to "legal norms relating to morality and public order". Thus banning rude, abusive or culturally sensitive words.

Here we have a slippery slope. For a start exactly who’s 'rude' are we talking about? As anyone who has ever tried to market a product internationally this can be a minefield. As we all know something can be perfectly acceptable in one country that is rude, or insulting in another, even in English speaking nations, if you factor in other nations the problem multiplies.

The idea that it is ok for ICANN to appoint it’s self as global censor for the network concerns Wendy Seltzer, a fellow at the Berkman Centre for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School.

She believes ICANN should only set technical standards and avoid setting it’s self up as some sort of moral guardian of the network and it should be left to individual countries and even institutions to decide what is acceptable. The whole network should not be limited because of sectional or local interests

Regulating the internet is certainly possible, as the governments of China, the US and the UK have all demonstrated in various ways. But we don’t all want to be bound by what may be acceptable or convenient for one county. If there is to be such regulation then local control would be the least restrictive of freedom and freedom of speech and association.

The core architecture should be as open as possible, not only technologically but also in terms of any limitations of freedom of expression, not locked into a limited and politically controlled framework.

As Noam Chomsky said: "Goebbels was in favour of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favour of free speech, then you're in favour of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favour of free speech."

UK Government targets drinkers in their own homes

UK Ministers have decided they want to change English drinking culture

Ministers want to change the English ‘drinking culture’ and the willingness to accept ‘drunkenness’ and ‘anti-social behaviour’ as a normal part of life. They have a new strategy and are planning more social engineering…

Home Office Minister Vernon Coaker stated: "It is unacceptable for people to use alcohol and urinate in the street, vomit and carry on.

All sounds reasonably ok so far, from a mildly authoritarian, curtain twitching perspective, you might think.

The strategy apparently includes plans for ‘alcoholics’ (presumably, sooner, or later, anyone arrested for being drunk) to be sent for compulsory counselling after being arrested.

Frank Soodeen of Alcohol Concern enthusiastically referred to the strategy as a "big step forward", but said still more money was needed. He went on:"We are incredibly excited. It looks far more, ambitious and far-reaching, than it’s predecessor.".

The Government is primly claiming there are 7.1m "hazardous and harmful" drinkers in England, costing the health economy £1.3bn. So they are looking for justification then. All those virtual criminals wasting ‘health economy’ money! Jail is too good for them!

But Health minister Caroline Flint doesn’t just have her sights on antisocial drinkers. Oh no!

This time they are also planning to target older people who they consider to drink ‘too much’, in their own homes. She glossed on: "There are people, adults, who on a very regular basis are probably drinking twice the amount that is recommended."

Who recommends? The Government. How much is too much? Well the Government tell you that, although the evidence had not changed they recently changed the advice for pregnant women.

Hang on! Let’s stop for a moment and go over all that more carefully.

The government forces you to be part of a decrepit, mismanaged, ‘health service’, that swallows millions extra - without any obvious improvement.

There is no choice, no opt out. It effectively uses force, or the threat of force, to make you pay significant amounts of cash into it weather you want to or not. No choice.

They then use the possibility that you may use this ‘service’ to justify intruding into what you do in your own home, in private, to make sure you are not damaging your health. Drink related this time. They are well on the way with smoking, how long before eating too much gets worked in there?

Is it still your health? Is it still your body? Not entirely if they want control over it.

And you don’t even get to make your own informed choice as to what ‘too much’ might be in any given circumstances. Not you. No they decide that for you.

Could you see the French putting up with that?

World's largest 'Low Emission Zone’

Ken Livingstone, Greater London’s Mayor, has approved plans for the ‘World's largest Low Emission Zone’ on May the 3rd 2007, to be launched in February 2008.

The stated aim is to reduce harmful emissions from the most polluting (large diesel vehicles)lorries/trucks, coaches and buses by ‘encouraging’ operators to clean up their fleets. Sounds ok so far...

Initially the Low Emission Zone will apply to lorries/trucks over 12 tonnes.

Broadening in scope by July 2008, to take in lighter lorries/trucks, buses, coaches, and other other heavy vehicles.

How is this all to come about? Surprise, surprise - an enormous charge/tax of £200 for each day vehicles that don’t meet the standards enter the zone.

You can register your vehicle, but don’t worry if you don’t, as Transport for London (TfL) will use data you previously provided for other reasons to other agencies and organisations such as:

Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA)
Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA)
Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT)

to decide if your vehicle meets the emissions standards.

There is no real mention of the possible economic costs of imposing the zone. It is difficult to imagine that the costs of becoming compliant will not be substantial and in the end, be passed on to those who live and work in London.

More disturbing still is the harvesting of information, previously provided to others for entirely different purposes (presumably in confidence), to be used against the providers.

Also the fact that, if TfL decide, based on the information, that you are a polluter - even if you are not, you will have to prove it.

Big Brother is censoring you

Here is something a little disturbing.

A recent report , from the Berkman Centre for Internet and Society, indicates that state-mandated internet filtering is being introduced by a growing number of states around the world.

John Palfrey, at Harvard Law School, said that the report was an attempt to shine a spotlight on filtering to make it more transparent.

He indicated that in the last five years net filtering has risen from a couple of states doing it to twenty five. "There has also been an increase in the scale, scope and sophistication of internet filtering."

The filtering has three main justifications: politics and power, security concerns and social norms. Apparently it almost always happens in the shadows and the levels of censorship are expected to increase.

He said: "What's regrettable about net filtering is that almost always this is happening in the shadows. There's no place you can get an answer as a citizen from your state about how they are filtering and what is being filtered."

Rafal Rohozinski, a Research Fellow of the Cambridge Security Programme stated that "Few states restrict their activities to one type of content.". Apparently once a state starts filtering, it does it on a broad range of content.

States carrying out the broadest range of filtering included Burma, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen. No real surprises there then.

States the survey detected censoring the net are: Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Burma/Myanmar, China, Ethiopia, India, Iran, Jordan, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Korea, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, UAE, Uzbekistan, Vietnam and Yemen.

Before you feel all warm, smug and safe though keep in mind that the report also said that the US and a number of European States were not tested because the private sector tends to carry out filtering, instead of the Government.