No, don’t laugh - the guy’s serious!

An article in The Independent trails a speech Blunkett will give tomorrow. In it he’s expected to attack Gordon Brown’s government for taking us towards a Big Brother state and oppose the latest data sharing plans saying:

It is not simply whether the intentions are benign, undoubtedly they are, but whether they are likely to be misused and above all what value their use may have

That’s one of the arguments made by Blunkett’s critics when he was in the Home Office. Has the arch-enemy of airy fairy libertarians had a Damascene conversion? It sounds like it, but let’s look at the small print.

The biggest issue is today, of course, the threat of compulsory ID Cards and a huge, intrusive National Identity Register (NIR). This was Blunkett’s baby, so what does he think now?

Well he now says that ID Cards should be voluntary - but instead he thinks passports should be compulsory for everyone! This would, of course, involve everyone being on the NIR with all the legal obligations that would bring. If everyone had a passport then it would become a de facto ID card - the worry has always been more about the database than the piece of plastic. As Phil Booth, National Coordinator of NO2ID, said:

His ‘opt out’ means nothing, but at least Mr Blunkett is being honest about compulsion, which current ministers have spun and spun to pretend isn’t there. The issue is not, and never has been just the card – it’s coerced registration, and lifelong surveillance by database.

Will this new look Blunkett at least accept that he himself contributed to the erosion of British civil liberties? Of course not. This is a man whose idea of reasoned debate is to dismiss his opponents as intellectual pygmies.

For example, Blunkett also attacks creeping use of anti-terrorism legislation for “trivial” uses, such as the 2000 Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) being abused by local councils. However he seems to forget that it was he who in 2003 introduced the “snoopers’ charter”: the controversial extensions of the Act that allowed such snooping to become widespread.

As expected Blunkett not only fails to apologise but gives himself an implicit pat on the back for bringing about the current situation, saying that Labour have got the balance between liberty and security broadly right. That’s like saying the Daleks have struck the right balance between compassion and power.

So long as David Blunkett shows no remorse he can expect no parole from the prison of public opinion.

Related posts:

1. David Davis’ Resignation: Analysis What are the implications of the Davis resignation?...
2. David Davis Resigns to Fight 42 Day Internment David Davis to fight by-election on issue of civil liberties...

The latest target for the snoopers is the great British pub. Of course pubs, clubs etc have always installed CCTV when and where they felt it necessary, but only if they had reason to suspect a problem. Now the police want this surveillance to become routine even in pubs with no history of trouble.

The Mail reports on the growing number of police forces refusing to support licence applications unless the licensee installs CCTV cameras and agrees to hand over any footage “requested” (which presumably means “without a warrant”).

This already the norm in sonme areas of London, notably Richmond and Islington where “all applicants for permission to sell alcohol are being told they must fit CCTV”. The policy is also spreading with Essex and Northamptonshire police wanting CCTV installed on late-opening premises.

So far the compulsory cameras are outside buildings, however once these become the norm it would be a small step to the police insisting on them being installed inside as well. Again, many premises already have these - but that is their choice.

The Information Commissioner is “seriously concerned” by this latest invasion of privacy which is being introduced insiiously without debate or legislation. Deputy Information Commissioner David Smith said:

Hardwiring surveillance into pubs raises serious privacy concerns. Installing surveillance in pubs to combat specific problems of rowdiness and bad behaviour may be lawful, but blanket measures where there is no history of criminal activity is likely to breach data protection requirements.

Use of CCTV must be reasonable and proportionate if we are to maintain public trust and confidence in its deployment.

Personally I’ve already lost trust and confidence in the UK’s blanket CCTV coverage.

Related posts:

1. Ex MI5 Boss Fears UK Police State Stella Rimington atatcks erosion of civil liberties...
2. UK Fails Data Protection Principles The EU Human Rights Commissioner proposes seven data protection principles....

As the UK’s former chief spook Rimington is hardly one of the “usual suspects” when it comes to civil liberties. Yet she has consistently opposed Labour plans such as compulsory ID Cards and 42 internment without charge. The latest comments come in a an interview with Spanish newspaper La Vanguardia where she says:

It would be better that the Government recognised that there are risks, rather than frightening people in order to be able to pass laws which restrict civil liberties, precisely one of the objects of terrorism: that we live in fear and under a police state

That sounds to me like she’s saying that the government are doing the terrorists’ work for them, a position with which I completely agree.

Conservative MP David Davies, who recently fought a by-election on a civil liberties platform, said:

Like so many of those who have had involvement in the battle against terrorism, Stella Rimington cares deeply about our historic rights and rightly raises the alarm about a Government whose first interest appears to be to use the threat of terrorism to frighten people and undermine those rights rather than defend them

Isabella Sankey, director of policy at Liberty, said:

Over the last seven years, we’ve seen a number of measures passed, some of which affect very few of us in a horrible and terrible way, whether that’s house arrest under control orders or rendition and torture in foreign states.
We’ve also seen many, many measures that affect all of us just a little bit and, most of all, which seriously impact our rights to privacy.

Related posts:

1. Police Want Compulsory Pub CCTV Police insist on CCTV before supporting licence applications...

First They Came For The Pilots…

Following massive public opposition to the scheme the Home Office decided to try imposing ID Cards step by step, starting with target groups such as students and pilots. As part of this back-door rollout the government had hoped to force the cards and NIR registration on airside workers at Manchester and London City airports (’Wave One’). That plan now looks in doubt following the uncompromising statement from BALPA.

Pilots are clearly very angry. The letter to the Home Office from Jim McAuslan, BALPA General Secretary, begins:

I am writing in response to the Consultation to place on record our continuing opposition to the introduction of ID cards which will have absolutely no value as far as security is concerned. It is now clear to BALPA following publication of draft regulations that the Governments’ intention is to make the Critical Workers Identity Card mandatory for airside workers; this is nothing other than coercion. Promises that ID Cards would be voluntary have been broken.

Furthermore, we are angered by the use of pilots and workers within the aviation industry as ‘guinea pigs’. It is clear that the Government’s staged introduction of biometric Identity Cards first to overseas students, then to migrant workers and then for aviation workers represents a way of picking off what is seen as ‘easy / compliant targets’

Without being pompous about this, it is an affront to the people who for years have been and continue to be at the forefront in a battle against terrorist outrage that we are subject to the inuendo that we are especially dangerous and in need of further surveillance

BALPA have warned that pilots will not cooperate with the scheme and underlined this by asking:

what happens when the first airport worker refuses to register for an ID card?

The letter ends by stating:

…you should be aware that we will be campaigning against ID cards and the regulations with all means possible and will be letting the Wave One airports know this.

It sounds like the government might be forced to back down or risk the entire UK air transport system grinding to a halt.

Related posts:

1. Young People Slam ID Card Scheme A piece of Home Office propaganda backfires...
2. First ID Card Guinea Pigs Named Airport workers will soon be forced onto ID database...
3. Scotland Restates ID Card Opposition The Scottish government has restated its opposition to ID Cards...

Scotland’s Community Safety Minister, Fergus Ewing, has written to the Home Office in London in response to a Westminster consultation document. In the letter Ewing said:

Given the current financial climate, the UK Government should have better uses for the vast sums of money being spent on this scheme, which presents an unacceptable threat to citizens’ privacy and civil liberties, with little tangible evidence to suggest it will do anything to safeguard against crime and terrorism.

Ewing also raised doubts about the legality of the NIR under EU Human Rights legislation.

The cards are being imposed from London as a “reserved matter” so the Scottish government can’t prevent the scheme going ahead. However active non-cooperation by Scotland will make the project more difficult to implement and - hopefully - slow it down until there’s a change of government in Westminster.

Such high profile public opposition to an unpopular scheme being imposed from England is also likely to increase support for the SNP’s goal of Scottish independence.

Related posts:

1. Pilots Will Boycott ID Card Scheme The British Pilots step up opposition to ID Cards...
2. First ID Card Guinea Pigs Named Airport workers will soon be forced onto ID database...
3. Arrests At Peaceful ID Card Protest in Edinburgh Peaceful protestors arrested at ID Card meeting...

CAAN Action Notice - Sunday 25th January 2009 - Parliament Square Westminster, London

Even if (like me) you don’t enjoy this sort of material there’s a principle at stake here: this law will also apply where the images are entirely staged or CGI and will criminalise a victimless thoughtcrime.

No related posts.

The police have been taking fingerprints and DNA samples from suspects for years. Recently they have - in England and Wales, not Scotland - been keeping samples from anyone arrested even if that person was never even charged let alone found guilty of any crime. This has allowed the UK to start developing a national DNA database by stealth. We currently have over four and a half million entries on the database with over a million of these having been added when the person was under 18 (reference).

Today the ECHR has ruled that holding the fingerprints and DNA of innocent people charged with no offence is a breach of human rights. According to the Court:

The powers of retention of the fingerprints, cellular samples and DNA profiles of persons suspected but not convicted of offences … failed to strike a fair balance between the competing public and private interests

and

the retention in question constituted a disproportionate interference with the applicants’ right to respect for private life and could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society

The UK government’s response has been to describe the ruling as “disappointing”. Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said that “the existing law will remain in place while we carefully consider the judgement”. This is often code for “we’re trying to find a loophole to get round the judgement”, however the unanimous decision of 17 judges combined with the strength of their comments may make this difficult. Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty said:

This is one of the most strongly worded judgements that Liberty has ever seen from the Court of Human Rights. That court has used human rights principles and common sense to deliver the privacy protection of innocent people that the British government has shamefully failed to deliver.

Hugh Whittal of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics said:

We agree wholeheartedly with this ruling. The DNA of innocent people should not be kept by police

Related posts:

1. The Brown Hatter’s Tea Party Brown believes compulsory national ID Cards, CCTV surveillance and mass...
2. Ex MI5 Boss Fears UK Police State Stella Rimington atatcks erosion of civil liberties...

Some years ago a manufacturer introduced a gadget called the Mosquito. This emitted an annoying hum at a very high pitch - designed only to be audible by the young. The idea was to target groups of youngsters hanging around and causing trouble. The sound made by the Mosquito is so annoying that they move on quickly.

Whilst technically clever the gadget has been controversial. It was argued that by targetting young people specifically the Mosquito was discriminating unfairly, breaching their civil liberties and human rights. Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty said:

What type of society uses a low-level sonic weapon on its children?Imagine the outcry if a device was introduced that caused blanket discomfort to people of one race or gender, rather than to our kids

So, as the BBC reports, the manufacturers have responded: with a version that can annoy everyone! The new Mosquito Mark 4 has a setting that allows it to emit a lower frequency sound that can be heard by anyone.

Having been criticised for indiscriminately annoying only some people they respond by indiscriminately annoying everyone. Madness.

Of course this wouldn’t be a problem if the devices were only switched on when trouble was detected and there was a need to clear up a group, of whatever age. The issue from a civil liberty perspective is that many - perhaps most - of these things are left on all the time. This, yet again, reverses the assumption of innocence ; if we choose to stay in a particular place for more than a few minutes then we must be up to no good.

It’s the faceless voice of authority screaming “These streets are ours, not yours”.

The Buzz Off campaign is the centre of opposition to the mosquito. I expect they will soon be getting many more supporters.

No related posts.

She refused.

Smith used the argument that a minister shouldn’t interfere with operational police matters in a particular investigation. The police should be independent of the government.

She’s quite right about that and I agree. But it doesn’t remove the requirement for, if not an apology, at least an expression of regret.

Smith’s whole approach was defiant. She gave the impression of not even understanding why people are upset. As such she implicitly condoned the police action.

The issue here is bigger than the arrest of Damian Green, that’s just a symptom of a wider problem. The issue is what’s happened to the UK under New Labour. It’s because of the illiberal, authoritarian approach taken by successive Home Secretaries that the police thought themselves justified in taking the action they did. Labour’s constant chipping away at our civil liberties has made thinkable the once unthinkable.

By refusing to even express regret about this latest small step towards a police state Smith has simply underlined the danger her party represents to British freedom.

Related posts:

1. Stalinist Britain - New Labour’s Legacy A Tory MP is arrested for embarrassing the government...
2. A Bad Day for Big Brother Government on defensive over surveillance society...

That’s what happened yesterday in England.

Tory immigration spokesman Damian Green was arrested at his home yesterday, counter-terrorist officers reportedly searched his home and office. He was then held and questioned for nine hours before being released on bail.

Green is suspected of the “crime” of conspiring with a civil servant to allegedly release information such as the following:

• The Home Secretary knew the Security Industry Authority had granted licences to 5,000 illegal workers, but decided not to publicise it
• An illegal immigrant had been employed as a cleaner in the House of Commons
• A list of potential Labour rebels against plans to introduce 42 days internment
• A letter from the Home Secretary warning that a recession could lead to a rise in crime

(list from the BBC)

Even if the allegations against Green are true, that’s hardly stuff that could compromise national security. It’s simply information that the government wanted to conceal for political purposes.

The Conservative party are understandably furious at this unprecendented and heavy-handed arrest. David Cameron has reportedly described the events as “Stalinesque”. He’s right.

Did the government know about or authorise the arrest? They say no - however it’s standard procedure for the Home Secretary to be informed prior to action involving MPs.

Even if no government minister knew about this it doesn’t change the fact that it happened. Even if the police acted entirely on their own, it’s a result of the last decade of Labour rule that we live in a country where they even consider such an action.

Obviously MPs should not be above the law. However this appears to be a case that the police simply should not have wasted time pursuing, MP or otherwise. There are certainly better uses for anti-terrorist officers.

New Labour has been taking away our freedoms bit by bit so that most people don’t notice what’s hapening. When an elected MP is arrested for embarrassing the government we may well be at a very dangerous tipping point.

In a free country releasing this sort of information should not be a crime, it should be a duty.

No related posts.