Big Brother Watch

Pill designed to help quit smoking may increase risk of heart problems

A previously controversial pill designed to help people quit smoking has been accused of raising the risk of heart problems in its users. Varenicline, which is supplied under the brand name of Champix, has been linked to depression, anxiety and suicidal thoughts on numerous occasions but is still sold today. It is used by around 140,000 people in Britain and accounted for one million prescriptions in 2010.    

A study by the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Maryland utilised 14 studies into the drug, containing over 8,000 smokers. 52 of 4,908 using Champix suffered cardiac problems, compared to 27 people of the 3,308 who were taking placebos. In reality this is only an increase from 0.82% to 1.06%, less than a quarter of a percent.

Dr Sonal Singh, from, said:

“This is just like driving a car without brakes. Going forward, I don’t know how we will convince our patients to take Champix for what, to increase your risk for heart attack?... People should be concerned. They don’t need Chantix to quit and this is another reason to avoid Chantix all together.”

“People want to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease but in this case they're taking a drug that increases the risk for the problems they're trying to avoid. They should be concerned.”

With the large amount of risks now associated with Champix, it seems very strange that it is still be prescriped to so many people in Britain.

The research has been challenged by the Velvet Glove blog here.

Links of the day: Tuesday 24th May 2011

Alex Deane: We must welcome the report of the Red Tape Taskforce as a step towards making volunteering less bureaucratic

Wikipedia founder opens new front in privacy battle

Identity scheme echoes ID cards, say campaigners

A whole new era for cookies begins tomorrow

Your guide to the EU Privacy Directive

Do-not-track off to a slow start, Mozilla adds support for Android

LinkedIn slashes cookie lifespan after research exposes security flaws

Exploited Hotmail bug stole email without warning

PlayStation Network breach will cost Sony $171m

Privacy, the Press and Twitter: some uncomfortable truths

Bad Boy of the Week: Brum councillor Martin Mullaney

Authorities in Birmingham have barely been out of the papers this year, such is their enthusiasm for public surveillance. This month is no exception.

No sooner had it been confirmed that the city’s disastrous spy camera scheme would finally be scrapped after months of public outcry, it was announced that audio sensors had been installed to monitor the city’s mean streets.  Birmingham also featured prominently in a Big Brother Watch Report last month into council spending on CCTV. The report named and shamed the city council for spending a whopping £10.5m of public money on cameras in the last three years alone - more than any other local authority in Europe.

With barely a pause, yet another CCTV scheme has been proposed, in Moseley Village, a leafy suburb in south Birmingham. The man behind the scheme was local councillor Martin Mullaney, a longstanding and vocal advocate of CCTV cameras, and the council’s Cabinet Member for Leisure, Sport and Culture. Armed with the support of several local traders and having “persuaded” the Safer Birmingham Partnership to part with £100,000 to finance his scheme, it was nearly a done deal. Indeed the Birmingham Mail announced that “several cameras will be installed along the High Street.”

There was just one small thing: a public consultation of some sort would be needed. After all, the council’s failure to consult communities over the ill-fated spycam scheme earlier this year was universally condemned: angry residents felt that the surveillance had been done to them rather than for them. So, keen to avoid a repeat of the fiasco, councillors astutely agreed to ask people before installing the cameras: a novel idea that had by and large, not been deemed necessary in the past.

Drivers could face random drink-drive tests

Police should be able to breathalyse drivers on a random basis according to an influential committee of MPs.

If a law-abiding motorist is stopped on the whim of a passing police patrol with nothing better to do, and is prevented from going about their lawful business (for no matter how short a space of time) then this should clearly be regarded as harassment and false arrest, if the motorist is compliant within the drink-drive law.

The law prohibiting people being drunk and disorderly in a public place still exists in this country, yet as we all know, this law is widely ignored by the police and only acted upon when the culprit becomes extremely violent.

Yet we now have this so called "influential committee of MPs" suggesting that the police be given more rights to persecute innocent motorists by randomly stopping them, holding them against their will and forcing them to take a breath test, when there has been no evidence at all that the motorist concerned has broken any law. If acted upon, this would be yet another infringement of our basic liberties.

By Peter Thurgood

Guest post: Two expensive jokes

First, a surveillance balloon termed "a covert intelligence tool" by police has been scrapped because it couldn't cope with bad weather, yet the £80,000 'Eagle Eye' blimp was the size of a truck with 'POLICE' written in 10ft letters on the side.

Second, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown reported Tory Councillor Gareth Compton to the police after he posted a 'glib' tweet which said: "Can someone please stone Yasmin Alibhai-Brown to death? I shan't tell Amnesty if you don't. It would be a blessing, really".

You might, or might not, have laughed at this but here we are with yet another waste of police time and taxpayers' money and another silly assault on free speech. Alibai-Brown reported Compton for incitement, he has been arrested, bailed and suspended from the Conservative Party.

The 'vibrant' writing by Alibhai-Brown concerning her views on certain sections of the population she dislikes are presumably OK.

By Gill Chant

If you would be interesting in writing a guest post, please e-mail [email protected].

Fear in the Academy

Fear of free speech, not fear of “Fascist” fundamentalists, is rife in our universities

According to the recent report from the Quilliam Foundation, fundamentalist Muslim students at City University harass and intimidate staff and students. It’s alleged one student leader asserted in a speech  that the Islamic state enjoins cutting the hand of the thief, stoning adulterers, throwing homosexuals off mountain tops and killing kafirs.

Why is this news? Having taught once at a university with a Christian foundation and ethos some students complained about ‘aggressive Christianity’. They seemingly had a point on one occasion, for example, a small group of fundamentalist Christians circulated a flyer about those likely to go to hell. It was an impressive list: atheists; Muslims; Buddhists; homosexuals etcetera. It’s tempting to parody the likes of the Quilliam report in the manner of The Daily Mash ‘Report finds fundamentalist Christians want to brutally torture Muslims throughout eternity.’ It’s not news.

One response to people with crackpot Islamist views is that of Nick Cohen who hits the intellectual nail on the edge about this. He accuses academics of being abject in front of fundamentalist unreason and ignoring its consequences, a situation which he thinks encourages extremists such as the infamous UCL graduate, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the ‘Underpants’ bomber.

However Cohen uses a misleading analogy.  Lecturers won’t ‘confront illiberal views, he argues, for three reasons; their ignorance about extremist Islamists: their own opposition to Western intervention, and the general negative effects of the assault on civil liberties.  Because of this threefold handicap the majority of academics, when faced with Islamic extremists, will not ‘argue against them with the vigour with which they would argue against the white far right because at some level they think the hate is the fault of the west.’ 

Guest post: My ill-fated evening in Southampton - Britain’s big brother capital

Recently I had the misfortune of being invited for a night out in Southampton.

This visit was a real eye-opener to me and taught me how much the ‘Big Brother’ society is starting to negatively impact on our day to day lives. I also had a lesson in how little power we have to challenge the people who are doing this.

Let’s start with the basics: it is not possible to have a night out in Southampton without carrying some form of identification.

The types that the bars and clubs accept are: a 'Prove it' card (which at 30 I am too old to have), a driving licence (I don’t drive) or a passport (which in line with Home Office guidelines I use for immigration purposes only!). Without one of these documents, snarling bouncers will refuse you entry to almost every club or bar, even if you the last time you got IDed John Major was still Prime Minister!

The Equality Act is a dangerous joke

On 1 October the Equality Act 2010 became law. Its stated intention is to end discrimination in the workplace. The likely result is it will poison relationships between colleagues and employer-employee. It urges us all to view ourselves as victims in need of state intervention to police our working lives.

The legislation introduces the concept of ‘discrimination by perception’ and ‘association’ to more ‘protected characteristics’ which is particularly problematic. No discrimination needs to have taken place for a case to be made against a co-worker or employer. The ‘victim’ just has to perceive discrimination. The perceived discrimination doesn’t even need to be against someone in the workplace. You can feel discriminated against because you know a Muslim and someone makes a joke about Burkas.

The act attempts to protect employees from offence. What it does is undermines the ability of people to sort out issues between themselves. In fact trying to sort out a problem between yourselves could itself be considered harassment. If someone is offended by something you have said, a joke for instance, explaining yourself to them could be seen as rubbing it in, multiplying the offence felt. Your intentions are not important. The psychological state of the offended person is primary.

This deeply illiberal act encourages everyone to see their colleagues not as allies with a common interest who can group together to fight redundancies for example. Rather they are rivals, racists, sexual predators and sexists.

Who cares about medical privacy

It is a commonplace among proponents of a "no secrets, nowhere to hide" society that young people, brought up in the internet age are happy to live in public on Facebook and mobile phone, and don't value their privacy. The hint is that doing so is somehow for fuddy-duddies.

But a study just published by the Royal Academy of Engineering suggests that so called Digital Natives actually have a more subtle understanding of what privacy means than those pooh-poohing it.

‘Privacy and Prejudice’ (full report available here)  specifically studied the views of teenagers of the computerization and centralization of medical records – Electronic Patient Records (EPR).  It is very clear:

Growing up in an era of the Big Brother television series and the expansion of social networking sites such as Facebook does not mean that young people do not care about privacy or what happens to their personal information. Privacy is indeed extremely important to young people. [...]

Young people have significant concerns regarding EPRs. These arise due to the perceived inherent weaknesses of an EPR system, including both the robustness (or not) of the technology and the potential errors that will be made by the users. Young people noticed that this could lead to incorrect data within a patient’s record, data loss (massive or individual) or the data reaching the ‘wrong hands’. The consequences were deemed to be very serious and include the improper treatment of patients, fundamental breaches in privacy, the misuse and inappropriate exploitation of the data, prejudice and discrimination.

They distinguish naturally between such systems, where the information included and the uses it is put to are not chosen by the subject but fundamentally affecting his or her life, and the social network, seen as a matter of self-projection and presentation. It’s the nature of the relationship that is important, who is in charge.

On this evidence teenagers also have a much clearer understanding of the meaning of privacy than government policy makers, who have just decided that the NHS Summary Care Records system can continue to be built by the sort of inertia selling that would be illegal for a commercial organisation. In future they will put an opt-out form in the envelope. Big deal. You will still be assumed irrevocably to have consented, regardless of your understanding of what you are being asked, if you fail to use it - on behalf of yourself and your children.

There are no plans to write to under-18s individually. Adults know better what’s good for them, apparently.

By Guy Herbert, NO2ID

Facebook's Privacy Problem

As someone studying Marketing, Advertising & PR at university with a special interest in Social Media I am certainly no stranger to the beast that is Facebook. Despite the heavy criticism it has received from its users I have always defended it, having the view that what you put on the internet, especially on a social website, is your responsibility.

For example when people complained that adverts on Facebook 'knew too much' I took the view (a biased marketer's one admittedly) that data intelligent adverts were a good thing. Why wouldn't you want specifically targeted adverts as oppose to the usual dating, money making and medical adverts people are often inundated with?

Increasingly though I have taken a more and more negative view to the way Facebook deals with its users and data privacy. When the founder of Facebook Mark Zuckerberg responded to data privacy concerns by stating that "the age of privacy is over" I was angered. It is one thing to inform users that they are responsible for the information they put on the internet, but another to completely disregard the basic human right to privacy that everybody deserves.

Does the Human Rights Act really protect our freedoms?

Francis Hoar is a barrister specialising in criminal law

The recent, sad and untimely death of Lord Bingham, KG, one of this country's finest jurists, calls for a reflection on the importance of the rule of law, about which he wrote so recently. Most importantly, what lessons can we learn from three decades in which Lord Bingham sat as a judge?

It is right to speak with pride of the legacy of Britain's common law system. Its principles are the foundation of legal system throughout the world protecting the individual against the State. The common law experience shows the merit of laws derived not from the codification of abstract principles but through the resolution of real conflicts and disputes. Yet anyone who watched the BBC's brilliant Garrow's Law will have had an insight into how little protection was trial by jury in a world without a fair police force, thorough investigation and  strict rules of evidence and disclosure.  As we all know, the experiences of the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four demonstrated how inadequate protection against such abuses lived on into the late 20th century.

The recent general election again brought into the fore debate about the effects of the Human Rights Act 1998 ('the HRA') and the European Convention on Human Rights ('the ECHR') it incorporated. As a criminal barrister, though, I would rather start with one of the finest pieces of legislation of the 20th century, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 ('PACE'). It is through this Act that suspects' interviews must be tape recorded, identification parades held and evidence obtained through oppression excluded. These parts of the criminal justice process may not appear particularly important to a layman but they are critical. Fine principles are toothless without carefully drafted rules (whether from statute or case law) to ensure a process that appears fair isn't corrupted at critical stages, leading to injustice at best but at worst the imprisonment of the innocent for years, even decades.

Net Neutrality is Anything but Neutral

The Net Neutrality debate is just getting going here in the UK. The US has been engaged in it for some time – indeed, Google and Verizon have added combined in an attempt to influence the public debate in recent months. But what is Net Neutrality?

Net Neutrality is a misnomer for a concept that isn’t neutral at all. Proponents of net neutrality argue that regulation or some sort of government intervention is a necessary requirement in order to ensure that the traffic on the Internet remains balanced. Effectively, people looking to log onto their email or view a YouTube video should be able to do that equally. The Internet traffic to one site shouldn’t take precedence over the Internet traffic to another.

At first and in theory, this might seem like a good idea. People will be able to access content from anywhere else in the world, at the same time, with the same ability. Fantastic. But what happens when (for example) a user buys a film on iTunes and wants to download it, and another customer who gets their connection to the Internet from the same company wants to log into and check their email?  Should both of these actions be treated equally?

The answer is no. More bandwidth is required to download a film than is required to check email. Network providers like BT, Verizon, TalkTalk, and AT&T know this. They also know that if they treat all network traffic equally, they are likely to have many angry customers who are accidentally disconnected from their internet just as their film finishes downloading.

The prioritisation of Internet traffic by companies is called ‘network management’. Companies who provide access to the Internet for their customers do this all time – and have done so since the early 1990s. Managing Internet traffic is complex, but in doing so companies can provide access for all their customers specifically when they need greater or lesser bandwidth. The end result is not often seen by customers unless network speed slows to a crawl or shuts down altogether.

Proponents of net neutrality claim that all Internet traffic needs to be treated equally so that the freedom and the spirit of the Internet are preserved. Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the world wide web weighed in on this: “there are a lot of companies who would love to be able to limit what webpages you can see, and governments would love to be able to slow down information going down to particular sites”. He went on to say, “The moment you let net neutrality go, you lose the web as it is. You lose something essential – the fact that any innovator can dream up an idea and set up a website at some random place and let it just take off from word of mouth. You can end up helping humanity and make a profit out of it once you’ve got a domain name.”

Berners-Lee is usually right in all things Internet-related, but here he is wrong for a very simple reason: this would limit access to the Internet, because net neutrality is government regulation of the Internet.  Any government – or even the EU for that matter – would have to pass a series of laws and legislation limiting the commercial ability of public and private companies who provide Internet access. This means that the management of their own business for the benefit of their customers would be regulated by the government – and not by industry standards as it is today in the UK. Furthermore, customers who today can change Internet providers if they are receiving poor service or pay more for greater broadband would no longer be able to switch to a different provider because, effectively, all providers would have the same and equal quality of service. This is "equality" achieved by dragging everyone down to the same low level.

The Internet is free and open as it is – except when governments get involved. Look at China and Iran – "net neutrality" need never be a debate in those countries because their Internet is already regulated by the government. Let’s not call this debate "net neutrality" - because it is not.  Let’s call it net regulation. The Internet will be fine without government intervention, just as it has been so far. Just look at all of the entrepreneurs who have built businesses and created jobs and contributed to the growth of the economy.

By Dominique Lazanski

No search warrant, no worries

A Philadelphia appeals court has ruled that a search warrant is not needed to obtain mobile phone logs during an investigation.  The judgment is contrary to the basic rule that warrant which is signed by a judge and based on probable cause is needed during any police investigation. 

The details of the ruling are complex but in essence it states that a warrant is not needed because tracking mobile phones “does not require the traditional probable-cause determination”  required by the US Constitution’s 4th Amendment – the amendment that prohibits unreasonable search and seizures.

The case came about because a US judge ruled that the Justice Department could not track mobile phone records without warrant.  The Justice Department disagreed on the basis that no US residents assume a "reasonable expectation of privacy" with regard to the whereabouts of their mobile phones.

That is to say that mobile phone location tracking does not violate anyone’s privacy because mobile phones (and their users presumably) move about in open and public spaces.  This is a concept that the Philadelphia appeals court upheld.

The ruling is interesting for privacy advocates and there is no doubt that the ruling will be tested again.  Often laws can’t keep up with the pace of new technology.  The issue is whether or not mobile phone ‘movement’ is private.  Land line phones records are subjected to warrants because they are often located inside a private house or business so if mobile phones replace land lines – and in many cases they do these days – shouldn’t they be subjected to the same amount of privacy?  This is an issue that we need to watch with a close eye for what is ultimately decided in the US may just impact how the UK and the rest of the Europe legally deals with mobile phone privacy.

By Dominique Lazanski

Just to add to the World Cup misery...

It appears that the details of quarter of a million football fans who brought World Cup tickets have been stolen and sold - possibly to criminal gangs. The stolen information includes passport details and dates of birth.

One of the really shocking things about this is that it's data from the *2006* World Cup! So, either this data was stolen four years ago and we're only just hearing about it - or the data has been retained for four years after the end of the competition! Either way, it's outrageous.

What's the betting that no-one will get anything more than a slap on the wrist for this? Or that lessons will be learned for how the 2010 data is managed...

By Andrew Tait

One more thing on Twitter's "disgusting data landgrab"

Dominique has just written about the fact that apparently all Twitter users will soon be switch over to use the company's t.co link shortening service (i.e. as a replacement for tinyurl, bit.ly, etcetera.)

We should point out that there are good security reasons for doing this, such as being able to protect against malicious links (and your thoughts on this under-explored point are most welcome).

But on the other hand, unfortunately, it appears that Twitter plans to keep a record of all links clicked - creating a central repository. This could be an attractive target for various officials. As shortened links will have to go to Twitter's t.co service to be decoded, not only will there be a record that can be requested by court proceedings etcetera, but those with access to the database of links - for sale to advertisers, perhaps - will know what you're looking at.

Yet another thing to worry about as we move around in cyberspace. Forewarned is forearmed. We can improve things by using one of the third-party link shortening services and keep switching the one we use - at least until the way Twitter intends to store and use the data becomes clear (if it ever does).

By Andrew Tait

Twitter is collecting your clicks

Twitter announced via email yesterday that all users will soon be switched over to Twitter’s new link shortening service "t.co". All links posted on Twitter will use it and the company will store a log of all clicks on links posted to Twitter. In short, Twitter will have a central repository of all links and clicked links on its service and the wealth of consumer information that comes with it.

There are obvious privacy concerns. CNET reports that a security breach could lead to the use and abuse of user data from millions of people worldwide. This would come in addition to the personal information already stored by Twitter in user accounts.  And this kind of user analytic information could be demanded for use in investigations and court cases.  Twitter is setting itself up for all kinds of enquiries.  But of course many other companies already store your click data – like Yahoo! and bit.ly for example.

The most troubling aspect to this story is the absence of any ability for users to opt out. This may cause users to walk away from Twitter altogether - or, hopefully, will force a re-think of Twitter’s privacy terms and conditions when people realise that they have been co-opted into a service that stores so much more data about them.

Apple’s new social media service on iTunes (Ping) prompts the user to opt in first the service can be used: so when a user chooses to use Ping, they are walked through a series of privacy questions before anything else. This is quite a departure from companies automatically opting in all users to settings that they are unaware of until they do a little bit of digging around. Maybe Twitter can learn a thing or two from Ping and offer their customers the choice to opt in or opt out of click tracking.

By Dominique Lazanski

CompareThePrivacyViolations.com

Have you used insurance price comparison sites comparethemarket.com (you know...with the meerkat) and confused.com? If so, you'd better check out the recent investigation conducted by PC Pro.

According to their research, you can access the full quote history of an account holder armed only with their name, date of birth and email address - information that can usually be gleaned from social networking sites (or obtained in casual conversation).

Confused.com seemed to be only a little better - you need to also have the postcode to reset a password there! Oh, and no email is sent to the account holder confirming the password change.

Clearly, given the nature of their business, both of these sites have published privacy and security statements. Just goes to show that you can't rely on fine words when it comes to your digital privacy.

Just for the record, I never supply my actual date of birth, postcode, etcetera unless it is legally required (e.g. in applying for car insurance...unfortunately). I've seen date of birth used as a security question in all sorts of inappropriate places. Where possible, treat it like a password - i.e. make one up.

By Andrew Tait

I know where you are...

The ubiquity of smartphones with geolocation capabilities (i.e. the ability to pinpoint you on a map) means that we're now starting to add our physical location to the mass of data we hand over.

Services like Foursquare and Gowalla - and now Facebook "Places", which Dominique and Alex have written about this month - encourage people to submit their location so that others (e.g. "friends") can see when there are in the vicinity (e.g. to meet up for a coffee). Participation is encouraged through incentives such as designating an individual the "mayor" of a location that they visit more than anyone else.

Location information is also handed out in less visible ways. For example, many phones now "geotag" photographs with location information, which shows not only when but also where they were taken. And, obviously, the use of store cards places you at a store at the time of use.

Its early days for location services, so we don't really know the full implications of sharing this kind of data - but, as is the nature of these things, it's a one-way street. Once the data is out there, you can never be sure of being able to remove it in the future. Can you really be sure that your movements this month won't come back to haunt you in some unforeseen way in 2020? If the police knew that you were in the vicinity of a crime, are you sure that you innocence would be 100% respected in the absence of any other incriminating evidence? Personally, I'd rather not risk it. (This is the subject of the book Alex is currently giving away as a guerrilla sticker prize).

One of the characteristics of the web that has resulted in individuals broadcasting so much of their lives is the anonymity it affords. For better or worse, people have been expressing their views, safe in the (misguided) knowledge that the digital and physical worlds are separate realms. However, with the growth of geolocation, the two are colliding. Unless you take care, all those "distant" people on the internet may now be able to find you as you go about your day.

Once again, it's the ease and lack of transparency with which this information can be unknowingly handed over that is worrying. Imagine, for example, the following plausible scenario. A young woman on a dating site may be flirting with someone she's never met before. After chatting for a while, sharing all sorts of private insights, she takes an innocent snap and emails it to her new friend. If that photograph is unwittingly geotagged, she's just given her home address to someone she barely knows.

Learn how to control the geolocation capability of your phone and disable it (only re-enabling them for the short period you require them - e.g. when using a satnav app). GPS is a major drain on the battery anyway, so it's a win-win.

By Andrew Tait

Further reading:Location services pose huge security risks, USA Today.

Facebook "Places": opting out

As Alex covered yesterday, Facebook Places has launched. We've taken a look at the default privacy settings: of course the default is set to show where you are physically and to let your friends check you in on your behalf. 

It is fairly straightforward to change the privacy settings - in case you have any questions or issues, our friends over at CNET have put together a brief video.  You can watch the video, Turn Off Facebook Places, here.

By Dominique Lazanski

Health warnings on mobile phones..?

San Francisco is at it again.  This liberal "progressive" city known best for the Golden Gate Bridge and sour dough bread leads the US in banning items and various aspects of public behaviour.  A full list of headlines featuring those bans can be found here.

What is it this time, you ask?  San Francisco has become the first city in the US to mandate the posting of radiation emission information beside every single phone that is for sale in every single mobile phone shop in San Francisco. Obviously, the mobile phone lobby is fuming over this mandate, but the local government "health experts" are thrilled, even though mobile phone radiation emission research has proved inconclusive over the years.

The lobby group for the mobile phone industry in the US said, "Information in the proper context is quite valuable, but this ordinance is extremely misleading and misguided.  The mayor made it clear he thinks this will force manufacturers to design and produce safer phones, but according to the science out there, these devices already are safe and don't need to be made safer."  The lobby group is now in court suing to stop the obligatory posters.  

Confusion on why and how the legislation came into law is clear.  The Federal Communication Commission already regulates mobile phones among other devices and so another level of regulation seems unnecessary – and it is.  Is this the nanny state gone made?  Yes, but this is San Francisco – the city that brought you a ban on plastic shopping bags and a ban on driving Segways on sidewalks and bike lanes. 

In this age of localism in the UK, let this be a warning to all of us.  We do want local issues to be decided by local communities, but we don’t want a local nanny state to creep in as well.  The nanny state serves two purposes – to create more government waste in tax spending and to limit citizens from going about their lives and conducting business as they see fit.  In the case of new law in San Francisco, we are going to see mobile phone shops required to spend more time and money on unnecessary administration and, in the end, possibly move to a neighbouring city so they don’t have to waste the time and energy on this unnecessary law.  So be warned – no to the local nanny state.

By Dominique Lazanski

The Whereoscope - soon to be tracking a child near you

The Internet and mobile GPS are incredible tools.  Information like telephone numbers, opening hours, and train times are now at our fingertips.  We can shop in a matter of moments and read the latest news.  And what would we do without maps and directions at our fingertips on our phone?  GPS has enabled us to get directions on the fly. 

But apparently it has also created an ideal system for spying on kids. Or, for that matter, anyone else you choose to set it up to track.

Last week, a new application called Whereoscope, was launched - it lets you track your children on your own mobile phone via the location of their mobile phone.  And which young person doesn’t have a mobile these days?

The Whereoscope takes advantage of a new iPhone OS4 feature which allows multiple applications to run simultaneously at once.  To set up Whereoscope, the parent must designate a number of specific locations at which their child can be found like school, a best friend’s house, or the local playground.  Once these locations are synched with the child’s mobile, the parent can choose to receive a push notification - like a text message - that tells them when the child has left a location or has arrived at another, unbeknownst to the child.  All the child has to do is leave his or her mobile phone on so that a combination of mobile tower location analysis and GPS tracking can take place.

In theory, perhaps all this seems like a practical approach to ensure child safety - the cotton wool precautionary principle so well known to us. But is this actually really necessary?  Isn't it bad enough that the government and others constantly lose your data, spy on your web traffic, and access your credit rating without your consent?  Do we really want to do this to children too?  Should we really be instilling this kind of big brother mentality into our kids when they (inevitably) find out that their parents are ‘spying’ on them via their mobile phone?

Being a teenager – or a young kid for that matter – is difficult enough, without having parents tracking every move.  Most of us who are parents now grew up in an age where it was just fine to go out with our friends and call our parents from the cinema to tell them that we were going to be late or to say we were going to sleep over a friend’s house.  We didn’t have the Internet or mobile phones, but we took responsibility (and learned from it), found our way, and did all the things that kids do – even get in trouble from time to time.  That's all part of growing up. 

Perhaps the best solution to all of this is to make sure, if you are kid and your parent has a new iPhone, that you turn off your mobile when you are out.  But we all know that the iPhone’s battery lasts about 2 hours long with an application running in the background, so maybe we don’t have much to worry about anyway!

By Dominique Lazanski

Caught with your pants down?

We’ve written many times about CCTV in toilets or changing rooms in schools, pubs and public toilets.

More cases of this absurd intrusion into our privacy are constantly coming to light, with prying electronic eyes in (formerly) private places - toilets and changing rooms. From public houses to public toilets, leisure centres to supermarkets, even children’s school changing-rooms, CCTV has become inescapable and, even more shockingly, deemed acceptable. Such ludicrous measures are defended by Local Education Authorities, councils and firms nationwide (no doubt because fighting against misuse of soap dispensers is a cause that justifies of capturing semi-naked pictures of the public).

 The Sun reports that time-keeping is one excuse in the Sutton branch of Tesco, Britain’s biggest private sector employer. “These cameras were initially used for security reasons but management can use them for other issues if they so wish,” a Tesco spokeswoman told The Sun, adding: "Staff may be disciplined if management feel there is good reason to do so," heightening employees’ fears that this means lingering loo-goers.

The Sun article just mentions Sutton so BBW would love Tesco employees in other branches to get in touch with their experiences.

CCTV in schools is increasingly common. CCTV in a Welsh secondary school is supposed to prevent vandalism – something that in the bad old days was done by a device called discipline, no longer widely available. “CCTV was installed, in the main, to overcome concerns about the misuse of paper and soap” said Ceredigion’s council leader, Keith Evans, an advocate of the action taken (and, incidentally, a school governor). This is the only school in its Local Education Authority to adopt CCTV in loos yet it was defended by the head teacher – albeit without providing any details of who would review the tapes. The same issue of course exists in relation to the CCTV in schools in Chelmsley Wood in the midlands; these reasons amongst others (including serious parental protests) saw the abandonment of CCTV in toilets in a school in Plymouth.

At the Rose & Crown in York, the justification for CCTV right inside the cubicles is cocaine use – as if coke-heads were too stupid to find a quiet corner anyway. At the Pure Lounge bar in Basingstoke, the excuse is vandalism.

Tooting leisure centre has four CCTV cameras in female changing rooms and no signs to warn any future stars of social networking: Dorota Sharma, a 45-year-old IT manager (so she should know), said “anyone with a little bit of technical knowledge could access it. It very quickly could be on YouTube or Facebook. I find it very offensive.” Children whose changing rooms are monitored in Salford

might feel the same way.

This surveillance doesn’t come cheap, either. A Big Brother Watch supporter has discovered via Freedom of Information request that CCTV in his local lavatories in the Hayes in Cardiff cost an eye-watering £6,400 to install – to which maintenance and monitoring costs must of course be added.

 Those of you who have had tea with your aunt at the Grosvenor Hotel at Victoria Station will share my shock at finding CCTV in the ladies' there (and the men's, according to the sign, although I confess didn't check). Security no doubt but I think most aunts can manage without the watchful eye of a security man.

Equally, many amongst our Learned Friends will be surprised and disappointed to find that there is CCTV at the heart of legal London – counsel using the Inner Temple loos will find that they’re being watched (by a camera pictured here).

Reacting to this remarkable escalation in toilet cams, Big Brother Watch’s Director, Alex Deane, said:

Our campaign against this growing and disturbing phenomenon has been triggered many members of the public who got in touch because they were so upset.

CCTV in loos is incredibly intrusive, and shows the contempt councils and schools have for our privacy.

Many toilet users don’t realise it – but all too often, Big Brother is watching you pee.

There must be many more stories like this out there but many won’t have been spotted by the media and even when they have been, many local newspapers are not online - so please send us details and photographs so that we can name and shame the absurd people responsible.

By Lydia Ellis

Guilty as (pre-)charged

The coalition has dropped plans to grant anonymity to men accused of rape. This is a climb down from a coalition pledge that said, "We will extend anonymity in rape cases to defendants."

The original plan was to grant pre- and post-charge anonymity. Apparently, the government now wishes to pursue a “non-statutory solution” – which appears to involve asking the media to respect pre-charge anonymity.This just isn’t good enough. Those accused of sex-crimes are judged by public opinion from the start – ruining the lives of people who are eventually cleared of all charges.

It could be argued that allowing those accused of rape to be “convicted” by the media is likely to encourage false accusations. The stigma of the accusations is what incentivises those who make them.

Apparently, MPs believe that granting anonymity to defendants could send a negative signal about those making the accusations. I would argue that it would actually do the opposite. Removing one of the incentives for making a false claim surely adds weight to subsequent claims.

By Andrew Tait

Paedophilia used as an excuse to snoop on internet users - again

Once again those who wish to impose the “Surveillance Society” upon us are trying to do so by exploiting public fears about online paedophilia.

Members of the European Parliament are being asked to sign a written declaration that will, ostensibly, “set up a European early warning system for paedophiles and sex offenders”. In reality, it will extend the Data Retention Directive to search engines.

The campaign website set up to promote this initiative shows a picture of a frightened child and, inexplicably, has the URL smile29.eu. I’m quite sure most of us don’t find any humour in paedophilia or the abuse of civil liberties.

The Data Retention Directive is a controversial directive that requires EU members to store citizens’ telecommunications data so that it can be used by police and security services. This new written declaration would extend the Data Retention Directive to cover web searches – e.g. what we type into Google every day.

MEP Cecilia Wikström has written a letter to her colleagues explaining how she was misled into signing the declaration. The declaration does not explicitly refer to data retention and only refers to the Data Retention Directive using its opaque formal reference (2006/24/EC).

The written declaration contains clauses such as,

...the internet also allows paedophiles and sex offenders to enjoy freedom of action, putting them on the same footing as honest citizens and making it difficult for the authorities to trace them”

So is the implication that “honest citizens” now to be subjected to scrutiny designed to monitor paedophiles?

This is a cynical attempt to exploit politicians’ understandable desire to prevent paedophiles plying their vile trade. Unfortunately, the reality is that it’ll provide yet more monitoring of honest citizens, further undermining their online civil liberties.

There is no evidence presented that paedophiles are using Google to find child pornography. In fact, the likelihood is that they use private bulletin boards and peer-to-peer file sharing networks. I’d do some more research into this, but I really think it would be ill-advised of me to type “distribution of child pornography” into Google, don’t you?

By Andrew Tait

Snooping on Instant Messenger

If anyone still believes that electronic communiqués are private, then the furore over AOL’s pending sale of their ICQ instant messaging service to a Russian investment firm should dispel that belief.

As reported in the Financial Times, the United States has raised objections to the sale plans for ICQ: “senior US enforcement officials” objected to the sale on the grounds that it will reduce their ability to eavesdrop on top criminals.

ICQ is the market-leader in Russia, Germany and the Czech Republic and, investigators claim, is widely used by criminal gangs in Eastern Europe. ICQ’s headquarters are currently in Israel – a country with close ties to the US.

Clearly, if the impending move of ICQ from Israel to Russia is such a blow to law enforcement effectiveness, government eavesdropping on instant message is pretty ubiquitous.

So, let’s be in no doubt that the next time you’re instant messaging your business colleagues, spouses, children, lovers, etc. you’re actually having a “three-way” with the CIA. Unless, of course, you chose to use ICQ...in which case it’ll presumably be with the FSB.

By Andrew Tait

CCTV in tower blocks

Charles Farrier represents No CCTV.

The prospect of CCTV in tower blocks reared its ugly head in the media last week after Harriet Harman raised the issue at Prime Minister's Question Time.

Back in 2009 No CCTV commented on proposals to put CCTV in several tower blocks in Oxford following a trial of cameras in one block, 'Foresters Tower' in 2008.

We sent the Oxford Mail a 250 word piece (as requested) for their 'The Issue' column, published in October 2009: somehow when it hit the press the key section had been removed. Here's my point on this important issue once again (with the removed text in bold).

CCTV in tower blocks is an invasion of privacy and a waste of taxpayers money. Study after study has shown that surveillance cameras are not effective in the fight against crime despite the hype that council staff and police constantly use to justify the expansion of CCTV. Privacy is not about hiding bad things from the police or other authorities, it is part of what defines life in a free country.

It has been reported that some residents want cameras in their tower block but in fact what they understandably want is a solution to the problems in their environment, and they're only being offered CCTV they take what they think will help. Councillors like CCTV because they think that it shows they are doing something and is therefore a vote winner.

The CCTV pilot in the Foresters Tower block in 2007/8 shows that the council is exaggerating the problem and that in reality CCTV had little impact – only a minority of the 28 residents surveyed who said that incidents of antisocial behaviour had gone down after the cameras were installed.

Filming people in and around their own homes is an incredible escalation of surveillance – it makes it possible to record when residents enter or leave their own homes and is tantamount to a council run control order. We were brought up believing “an Englishman's home is his castle” but increasingly it is becoming accepted as fair game in an out of control surveillance state.

Privacy, liberty and the Emergency Budget

Tomorrow the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, will present his Emergency Budget to Parliament. Given the chastening experience of several countries on the European continent, and the size of Britain's national debt, it has been widely recognised across the political spectrum that cuts to public spending are needed.

Big Brother Watch believes that if cuts have to be made, they should fall on the relics of the previous Government that are not only expensive, but also invade our privacy and infringe our liberty. With that in mind, below we have reproduced an extract from How to Cut Public Spending: (and Still Win an Election) edited by Matthew Sinclair, which sets out three major projects that could be culled.

These are by no means the only large state databases and authoritarian organisations we would like to see the back of. But they are a start that would help tackle the deficit and free the British people from overbearing government.

Curbing over-extended government

When governments attempt to do too much, the cost of failure is rarely just financial. Lives have been ruined by ineffective and intrusive databases, political responsibilities deferred to faceless bureaucracies. Driven by the pursuit of ‘efficiency’, Government has brushed off the implications for data security and personal liberty, centralising information and power in systems that it does not understand and cannot work. Over-ambitious, unnecessary and unpopular projects should now be brought to an end. Nannying government publicity should be curtailed.

Abolish Contact Point, the children’s database
£44 million from 2010/11 onwards

Contact Point is a database meant to contain the personal details of every child in the UK up to the age of eighteen, and is designed to reduce administrative burdens for people working with children. It has, however, been plagued by controversy, with data safety experts drawing attention to serious security failings. Some 390,000 people will have access to the details of eleven million children, including those whose families have never been in need of social care services. With access extended to so many people, proper scrutiny over use and retention of the data concerned is effectively impossible.

The Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust has also found that Contact Point is almost certainly illegal under European human rights or data protection law, ‘because of the privacy concerns and legal issues with maintaining sensitive data with no effective opt-out', and because the security is inadequate (having been designed as an afterthought), and because it provides a mechanism for registering all children that complements the National Identity Register. Given the Government's appalling data security record, the children's database is an accident waiting to happen.

ID cards by the backdoor?

The following article is a guest post written by Ian Dunt - the Editor of leading specialist UK politics news website, Politics.co.uk. Having read this article when it went up on his site on Sunday; we thought it was important that Big Brother Watch readers also had the chance to digest the details, and it is reproduced here with Ian's kind permission.

The devil, as they say, is in the details. When the coalition government said it would cancel ID cards most media outlets didn't pay much attention to the fact the cards would remain for foreign nationals. According to most of the British press, foreign nationals are, at best, an after thought.

No one wants to touch this one. When I contacted the Home Office, they insisted they can't get rid of the cards because of a piece of European legislation requiring biometric residency permits for third-party nationals residing in the EU. On June 13th, Britain signed up to Council Regulation (EC) No 1030/2002. In 2008 the law went a step further, with Council Regulation (EC) No 380/2008 banning the use of vignettes - little stickers you can put in a passport - as a means of satisfying the permit requirement. Now the permits had to be standalone card in 'ID-1' or 'ID-2' format. Britain went for ID-1 in line with its plans for ID cards.

The truth is, the government was only ever following EU law when it made foreign nationals part of the first phase of ID cards' roll-out. It merely seized on the requirements to fit its populist, xenophobic rhetoric, in a sad attempt to wring as much political capital as it could out of what was already an unethical EU regulation.

Remember that Crewe and Nantwich by-election in 2008? Back then, the controversy was all about how Labour tried to paint the Tory candidate as posh. But those same Labour leaflets had something else interesting in them. "Do you oppose making foreign nationals carry an ID card?" they read, in a mock-up Tory MP application form. In actual fact, the Conservatives opposed ID cards for everyone. This was desperate, ugly prejudice, the vain attempt to press that racist button in the British electorate. The media thought prejudice against rich people was more important, as is fairly typical. Labour seized the opportunities offered it by the EU law and ran with it in the most irresponsible way possible.

Clegg's speech may mean the state intrudes less - but we must not forget ongoing invasions of privacy by the private sector

Pietro Paganini, PhD is the Executive Director of the European Privacy Association

Yesterday, Alex highlighted Nick Clegg’s speech in which he reaffirmed his party’s – and I suppose, this government’s – dedication to preserving our individual liberties. It was, as one individual on ConservativeHome commented,

as if the deputy prime minister had “just cut and pasted Big Brother Watch's manifesto.”

Amongst his pledges, Clegg stated that the government would end the plethora of intrusive IT projects, ranging from ID cards to a national identity register, as well as ensuring that CCTV was “properly regulated.” In pledging to bring “an end to spying on people,” it’s clear Clegg has signaled his intent to form a new individual liberties contract between the state and the people. However, as the European Privacy Association and Big Brother Watch celebrate a tiny victory in public life, attention continues be drawn to events in the private realm.

The Daily Telegraph has a piece on Google’s Eric Schmidt and his attendance at the Zeitgeist conference in London. Following revelations that Google’s Streetview had been collecting private information from WiFi networks Schmidt remarked that it was “highly unlikely” that Google captured any “useful” information. Although Google has denied deliberately storing a user’s private internet traffic, they did intend, as the Financial Times claims, to “collect network names and serial numbers of WiFi hardware.” Google’s justification is that an unsecured WiFi network is akin to a public broadcast.

Meanwhile the Information Commissioner’s Office has called on Google to destroy all of the information they harvested through Streetview. And therein lies the problem. If we want to shed a light on Google’s activities, why on earth should we want Google to destroy this information? In addition, far from halting any further investigations, the ICO must continue to pursue this matter and ensure that Google comes clean about their activities and all the information they gathered. Questions concerning whether an unsecured network is “public”, is a completely different issue altogether, and one that the Justice Select Committee may have an interest in pursuing.

Big Brother Watch has documented public concerns surrounding Streetview on a number of occasions. But the storage of personal data is an issue of grave concern and a sinister development. The European Privacy Association, Big Brother Watch and others have spent a great deal of time fighting against state bent on intruding into our daily lives. But it doesn’t stop there. The storage of personal data by a private behemoth – without one’s knowledge – is just as concerning.

A few utterances from Mr. Schmidt does not go far enough to assuage public concern. We need to see action.

Fined for talking about tax

This morning the Daily Mail has covered a very worrying story about changes to the law which effectively make it a criminal act to dispense tax advice. The woman behind the story - Anne Redston, a Visiting Professor in tax law at King’s College London - has written the following blogpost exclusively for Big Brother Watch.

Have you ever suggested an ISA might be a good investment, helped an elderly relative reclaim overpaid tax, or been encouraged to use gift aid? This sort of advice could soon cost you £1,500 or more. 

HM Revenue and Customs have drafted new laws penalising ‘deliberate wrongdoing’ - but this isn’t about hiding money in foreign bank accounts. 

Instead, ‘deliberate wrongdoing’ is defined as an act capable of causing a ‘loss of tax.’ This in turn is defined as ‘relief, reduction, repayment or credit of any kind.’ These definitions mean that any advice on saving tax could be subject to a penalty.

How much?

The maximum penalty is 100% of the tax ‘lost’, but with minimum £5,000 (reduced to £1,500 if you confess your wrongdoing to HMRC before they discover about it). There is also a ceiling of £50,000 - but this is per person, per tax, per year, so it could be much higher.

Who’s affected?

The draft law also makes it clear that these new rules apply to everyone, although lawyers and journalists have special protection. Of course, this legislation will be particularly tough on those whose day job involves giving tax advice, such as accountants and financial advisers.

And for them there is extra punishment - HMRC can take away all their client files - not just those files relating to the ‘wrongdoing’ - but all files, from all clients, including former clients. 

Is this necessary?

Very definitely not! The taxman already has a huge armoury of legal powers to investigate genuine tax offences. 

Although HMRC may say it will only use the powers ‘reasonably’ or ‘proportionately’, once a government body has such draconian powers, the temptation to use them is overwhelming.  The taxman already deploys the anti-terrorism powers in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) over 5,000 times a year. And councils are using the same powers to check your rubbish bins.

What next?

You can find the draft rules by going on to the HMRC site (www.hmrc.gov.uk)  and searching under ‘draft legislation and deliberate wrongdoing’ and then reading from page 11.  It is too late to respond formally but you could still try sending your comments to HMRC at: [email protected]. 

And of course, you could ask your (prospective) MP to oppose these new extreme powers. I hope you will.

The view from Wycombe: Big Brother or the Big Society?

Here at Big Brother Watch we try to be even-handed. We praised Wycombe District Council several times for at least offering residents an opportunity to give their views on the area's (extensive) CCTV network, but were saddened by their apparent lack of interest in views the residents have expressed. Our most recent contact with the authorities there generated some heat as one of our volunteers stickered an omnibanning pole in the area as part of our Naming and Shaming campaign. Strangely and foolishly, "someone" from the Council gave a comment to the Bucks Free Press threatening us with prosecution, a threat that has yet to have any basis in reality - despite the pole being promptly re-stickered the next day.

In response, Steve Baker, the Conservative PPC for Wycombe, got in touch with Big Brother Watch with an article he's written about the issue. The article is below.

If you'd like to write a guest post for us, get in touch. Particularly, as we've given a Tory a free kick here (in response to us kicking the Tory Council), any comment from any other party in Wycombe would be looked at with interest.

In the last few days, we have had a round of guerrilla stickering in Wycombe. There was the sticker of the week. Then there was talk of prosecution at the Bucks Free Press. Finally, the sticker returned.

Now, it is a good photograph. As a totem for the surveillance society, it is superb. Perhaps some even find it superficially funny to see all-round "CCTV in operation" signs, a draconian alcohol prohibition, an exhortation not to urinate or defecate in the street and, as if in some final act of absurdity, a restriction on feeding the birds.

But why? Why was it thought necessary to watch, to prohibit and to spell out a requirement of common decency?

I have learned that this area of the town, Frogmoor, once accommodated an outreach to those with drinking problems and related issues. As a result, people from a wide area came to Frogmoor to drink rowdily. Intoxicated people terrorised the area and, as you might expect from the sign, urinated and defecated in the street. Feeding the large flock of pigeons surely finished off the job horribly.

If you actually had to live with that, it wouldn't be funny.

Think the ID card's gone away? Think again

Dominique Lazanski is an experienced digital consultant and a regular writer and commentator on Internet policy and regulation from a free market perspective. She has over 10 years of experience in Silicon Valley with spells at Yahoo! and Apple and has spent the last several years in London as a consultant to the music industry and media agencies.

I have been a resident of the UK since 2005, having emigrated here from the USA – my home country.  At first I was a graduate student, then -according to the Home Office - a highly-skilled migrant worker.  Recently I married a UK citizen and I had to renew my visa for the fourth time in 4 years.  This time, the situation is different.  No longer do I have a ‘vignette’ sticker in my passport. Instead, I have been compelled to have a UK ID card which holds my biometrics and visa.  I have to carry both my passport and my ID when I travel in and out of the country.

This compulsion is due to changes to the UK Borders Act of 2007 ‘updating’ the original act.  In 2009 a provision was added allowing the Secretary of State to demand an immigrant’s biometrics.  From the convoluted and obtuse language contained in the updated text, it appears that if the Secretary of State requests a record of biometrics from an immigrant, say me, when I am at a random location, say an airport, then I need to give it to him.  How do I give him a record of my biometrics? – by handing over my ID card.

The law states (though not clearly) that:

(6) Regulations under subsection (1)(b) may, in particular, require the production or other use of a biometric immigration document that is combined with another document; and section 16 of the Identity Cards Act 2006 (c. 15) (prohibition of requirement to produce ID card) is subject to this subsection.

Roughly translated: the Government seems to think that this means it's now OK to force ID cards on immigrants. This is troubling on so many levels, but there are two points in particular here.  First, since the ID card is required for all non-EU immigrants, then it is a very small step to mandate them for all citizens and residents of the UK.  Secondly, and more importantly, the revision of the UK Borders Act of 2007 provides for the Secretary of State to have more power to mandate laws directly, thereby bypassing the need for legislation to be passed by Parliament.  We have already seen such power introduced in the Digital Economy Bill, but we are now experiencing that power through this backhanded introduction of compulsory ID Cards.  These ever-increasing powers of the Secretary of State are far more dangerous and more widespread than we could ever have imagined.  Perhaps the Secretary of State will be our real ‘big brother’!

Related link: previous post from this guest author

Government to disconnect entire families for alleged illegal downloading

Florian Leppla is a Campaigner with the Open Rights Group, a non-profit company working to defend freedom of expression, privacy, innovation, consumer rights and creativity on the net.

The Digital Economy Bill, currently being debated in the House of Lords, would give the Government the power to disconnect people from the internet if copyright files are downloaded without permission. The Government, heavily lobbied by the music industry, seems convinced that's the way to stop illicit file sharing and downloading of music. What's certain is that entire families could be be disconnected if only one member (or lodger or guest) is accused of illegal downloading.

The bill doesn't acknowledge that account holder and infringer can be different people. That's the problem. The account holder will be liable for any infringement, whether he or she has infringed or not. That means that a whole family is punished because of the action of one person. This person can be anyone using their internet: a family member, a guest visiting, a lodger or a neighbour using their open wifi.

A lot of people need the internet for work or depend on if for their eduction. The Government has encouraged that and has pledged to connect citizens to the web, not disconnect them.

Gordon Brown said last year that "the internet is as vital as water and gas". Would he then consider cutting off people's water supply if their kids had shoplifted?

Disconnection is collective punishment. It is unacceptable. It is unfair and it is disproportionate.

What can you do?

1) Ask your MP to help remove the disconnection from the bill. Contact your MP now!

2) Write to your local paper and let people know that disconnection is wrong.

3) Sign up with the Open Rights Group to support our work.

Want your children to have school dinners? Surrender their fingerprints

Andrea Leadsom is the Conservative Parliamentary Candidate for South Northamptonshire

Last week I had the pleasure of accompanying a group of students from Sponne and Campion Schools to the Houses of Parliament.  But over our sandwiches afterwards, sitting on a wall in the drizzle of a cold Monday in Westminster, one of the students raised an issue with me that I found truly shocking.

He wanted to know if I thought that fingerprinting/iris scanning of children in schools might breach their Human Rights under EU legislation.  I was surprised as, until he explained further, I was unaware that millions of our children are right now being required by their schools to have fingerprints or iris scans done in order to borrow a library book or buy their lunch.

How would you feel if the government suddenly passed a law that every adult had to be fingerprinted at their local police station? Yet schools it would appear have accumulated fingerprint or iris data on millions of children, some as young as three. And apparently often without their parents' consent.

My student friend told me that a member of his family working in security systems believes that with a few hundred pounds of ‘hacking’ equipment, it would be possible to sit in a car outside the school gates and collect all that data.  The lifelong, permanently distinguishing data of children is at risk of being lost or stolen, and for what? 

I really fear for the direction this country is headed in.  There are so many examples of data being lost or stolen – collecting this permanent record of a human being should only be done for extreme reasons and certainly not for identifying whose library book is due back.

We risk the next generation growing up with an acceptance of cradle-to-grave state snooping and control, with all the errors and potential for identity theft that will ensue.  What's more, millions of pounds of taxpayers' money must be being wasted on installing fingerprint/iris readers in schools.

Liverpool Council has rejected this recording of children.  I will be writing to Northants County Council in the hope that they will do likewise.

We shall be watching for the results of Andrea's campaign with great interest.  If you want to oppose fingerprinting in your school, get in touch with Big Brother Watch, or with the excellent Leave Them Kids Alone campaign.

The dark ages

Declan Wilkes has worked as an investigative journalist and reporter for a decade. He is currently the News Editor of thelondondailynews.com. Ahead of the Queen’s Speech today, Declan reviews the proposed Labour bills in the field of civil liberties.

In spite of what you may have read about activities in the House of Commons last week, the state’s attempts to know what you do, where you go and what you think continues unabated.

Today's ‘slimline’ Queen’s Speech, with 15 bills plus two draft measures, is the continuation of a decade old project that has weakened the institutions that safeguard our democracy and hold the state to account.

Conservative Party Leader David Cameron has called it the "most divisive, short-termist, shamelessly self-serving" one "in living memory". Liberal Democrat frontman Nick Clegg has called on it to be cancelled.

The past week has seen ministers scrambling to secure their pet projects, hoping a possible new Conservative administration will be too preoccupied with the economy to dismantle the surveillance state apparatus that Chief Constables are only too happy to have.

The electronic database was sacrificed as the sharpest barb of a twin pronged attack on civil rights in order to get plans on the continued indefinite retention of innocents on the DNA database through parliament.

From the government that brought you Asbos, control orders, detention without trial, trial without jury, arbitrary extraditions, the largest DNA database in the world, continued secrecy of the courts, bailiffs into your homes, and allowed council jobsworths to spy on you come the latest round of freedom bashing bills.

Indefinite DNA retention

The Policing, Crime and Private Security Bill means innocent people still face the prospect of indefinite retention of their genetic profile - despite a European Court ruling that said keeping the data indefinitely was a violation of human rights.

Those suspected of terrorism offences will have their DNA stored for life. Those suspected of violent offences or sexual assaults will have data retained for six years despite never being charged or convicted.

Labour changed the law in 2004 so that anybody who came into contact with police could have their DNA taken and stored.

‘Mastering the internet’

The £2bn electronic database has been dropped from the Queens Speech; however much of the work has already been done.

Spymasters at GCHQ have been working on their 'Mastering the Internet' project for years, its existence only revealed in a job advert last year. Hundreds of millions of pounds have already been spent, Hewlett-Packard were already lined up to design and install the system and American defence giant Lockheed Martin have been providing GCHQ with data mining software.

A breakthrough may already have been reached that will combine data from social networking websites with details such as banking, retail and property records, allowing spooks to build extensive, all-embracing personal profiles of individuals.

Good news?

There are rumours a bill may abolish restrictions on protests around Parliament could be included according to the National Council for Voluntary Organisations.

Under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, people who want to protest in Parliament Square must first get permission from the police.

The Constitutional Renewal Bill, which was included in the Government's draft legislative programme earlier this year, would repeal that requirement.

What's out

While the threatened £2bn database of your emails, phone calls and text messages, will now not go ahead, at least not in this parliament, but it is a legally binding EU Directive that at some point will become law.

With Parliament likely to sit for about 40-70 days before an election next May, ministers admit not all proposals will become law.

Labours final attacks on civil liberties may never be law - bills that are not completed by the time the general election is announced can be blocked in the Lords who have thrown out their bills 444 times since 1999.

There in lies the reasoning behind the most political Queens Speech ever, Brown has nothing to lose.

For 13 years mission creep, secrecy and the perpetuity of taking justice out of the hands of responsible and accountable officials has eroded democracy and created a viable jail cell for a Big Brother state still under construction.

What crept through before Parliament Closed?

Before Parliament closed secrets inquests were resurrected buried deep away in the Coroners and Justice Bill which was passed in a close vote and now only needs Royal Assent.

While the Lord Chief Justice will have the power to veto a request for a private inquest and appoint the judge, ministers would still be able to set an inquest's terms of reference whilst restricting who can attend and what information was published.

Straw insists only a tiny number of cases would be affected - just like only a tiny amount of people would be affected by anti-terror legislation.

The main argument by the state was national security and airing of intercept evidence and 'sensitive' cases.

The clause provides a mechanism to cover up any deaths that could reveal negligence, wrongdoing or cause embarrassment creating a Big Brother state that can not be scrutinized. The natural erosion of justice extended to the dead.

Even the most basic tenet, deciding who can enter your home, has been subjugated by the state.

An amendment last week to the Proceeds of Crime Act, means a whole swathe of debt collectors, bailiffs and council officials can soon force their way in, seize cash, confiscate property and freeze assets on the basis of dodgy parking tickets or falling behind on your council tax.

Vulnerable people who struggle to stay on top of their bills face becoming easy targets for a profit driven cabal - obstructing officials can land you with a £2,500 fine and a year in jail.

A Statutory Instrument by Home Office Secretary Alan Johnson established this new intrusion, it required no parliamentary debate.

Today we see this government's final cynical blueprints.

How fortunate for government that people don’t think

Alan Pearce has worked as a journalist, broadcaster and author for thirty years. He has covered conflicts around the world and whilst the BBC Afghanistan correspondent im 1996 he was seriously injured covering the Taliban takeover of Kabul. He lives in France.

I am trapped in the plot of ‘Invasion of the Body Snatchers’. I can see what’s going on all around me but everybody else is too busy watching ‘The X-Factor’ or ‘Strictly Come Dancing’ to notice. This government can now pass any law – no matter how appalling – and no one will say boo.

To my mind, they crossed the Rubicon this month with the latest Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, signing a law that allows a host of town hall officials, quangos and agencies from the Royal Mail to the Rural Payments Agency - even civilian investigators - to force their way into our homes, seize cash, freeze assets and confiscate property to recover minor fines.

In one of the most audacious acts of ‘function creep’, laws aimed at confiscating the yachts and villas of the masters of the criminal underworld are now been turned against the ordinary citizen should they fail to pay a parking fine or fall behind with their council tax.

To make matters worse, those collecting the debts will get a share of the proceeds which makes a mockery of our independent legal system. Will anyone be surprised if they now set their sights on the easy targets?

This government has already introduced 430 laws allowing officials to enter our homes. Debt collectors and bailiffs have remarkable powers allowing them to determine the amount of violence necessary to recover debts. And woe betides the house-holder who tries to stop them, with fines of up to £2,500 and a year in prison.

It amazes me that while our troops are apparently exporting democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan, we sit by and allow a minister to smash down the doors to our private castles by amending the Proceeds of Crime Act with a Statutory Instrument – effectively a flick of the pen that allows for no Parliamentary debate.

Even the chairman of the Police Federation, Paul McKeever, drew a sharp breath when he likened the move to the new terror and surveillance powers being turned on ‘bin criminals’ and potential school catchment cheats by junior council staff.

When I mention to people that next year (2010) they will need to apply for an exit visa to leave the country, they look at me in amazement. ‘What, Britain?’ they ask. Yes, the very same place that hosts the Mother of Parliaments, the cradle of modern democracy, etcetera.

According to legal publishers Sweet & Maxwell, around eight new criminal offences are added to the list every day. People are so numbed by the tsunami of legislation that they have entered the twilight zone and are happily oblivious to the changes around them. As Hitler put it: “How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don’t think.”

How fortunate for today’s establishment – and especially for the police – that so few can be bothered to notice let alone think. We need to remember that our greatest successes on the road to democracy have been achieved through public protest, not by the flourish of a minister’s pen.

Without the Suffragettes, the women of Britain would not have secured the vote when they did. You can go back as far as you like. King John was held captive at Runnymede until he signed the Magna Carta – and that act of kidnap is today seen as the cornerstone of our democracy.

With this latest intrusion, I wonder if there is no limit to what we will accept. Would we draw the line if they tattooed all of our forearms? Or would we accept it to safeguard our ‘freedom’?

The time has come to take matters into our own hands again because the government can no longer claim to be acting in our best interests. We must now ask:

Whose Side Are They On?

Big Brother Watch readers can order Whose Side are They on? here or here, or read on here.

If you would like to contribute a guest post, please contact us.

Letter from America - a state-wide poll to violate privacy and intimidate voters

This is our third guest post. Previous guest posts can be found here and here.

Ewan Watt is a political consultant based in St Paul, Minnesota. Ewan spent three years in London working for Weber Shandwick Public Affairs and has had stints at the Republican National Committee and the Heritage Foundation in Washington DC. He is a Contributing Editor to YPNation, a blog and leadership network for young professionals in the United States where he covers issues as varied as health care reform, fiscal imbalances and foreign and defence policy.

Today, voters go to the polls in Gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey, in the highly contentious special election for New York's 23rd Congressional district and in various municipal elections. Furthermore, though, voters in Washington State go to the ballot box on an issue that may have ramifications across the entire country.

According to the New York Times,

"voters in Washington State will decide whether to extend to registered domestic partners the same rights married couples have, short of marriage. But the campaign over the referendum, placed on the ballot by opponents of same-sex marriage, has been overshadowed by one issue: whether the individual names of the petitioners should be made public, and ultimately, circulated on the Web."

Emphasis added.

The proposal’s supporters - the ominously named KnowThyNeighbor.org - claim that this will help mitigate growing fears of voter fraud, which given the 2006 debacle, is a major problem in the state. But in reality, it's an attempt to force "uncomfortable" conversations with their opponents, the 138,000 names and addresses of each and every individual that signed a petition in opposition to Referendum 71, a measure already passed by the state legislature to expand legal protection to same sex couples.

It's not Referendum 71 that has caused the furore per se, but the systematic attempts by 71's proponents to publicize what Stephen Colbert so aptly described as their "sexual orientation orientation". Is it legal?

71's proponents claim that Washington state's Public Disclosure Act already provides a legal basis for disclosing the personal details of each of the petitioners. After all, the names and address of each individual that votes in an election is already public record - so too are the details of state law enforcement. Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed claims that the list has to be made public in the name of "transparency" as Washingtonians "expect to know who is contributing for and against ballot measures that affect their lives." According to the PDA, signing a referendum is a form of voting and therefore not technically private.

In opposition, The Family PAC claim they already have Supreme Court precedent on their side, citing the 1958 case NAACP v Alabama whereby the latter attempted to force the former to release the records of their membership. Citing the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court sided with the NAACP claiming "Immunity from state scrutiny of petitioner's membership lists is here so related to the right of petitioner's members to pursue their lawful private interests privately and to associate freely with others."

The Supreme Court has already blocked attempts to publish these 138,000 names, but the fight is far from over. Given that the state already possesses the names and records of each voter, this state-backed initiative has nothing to do with transparency, but is an attempt to shame people from political participation - just look at what happened to those who backed California's Proposition 8 last year. It is an attempt to intimidate voters - not only from participating in referenda, but even from the simple act of signing a petition.

In Washington, the adage that "Bad officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote" now seems somewhat inaccurate. Even if you do vote, the bad officials appear to be going out of their way to prevent good citizens from participating in the first place.

If you would like to contribute a guest post, please contact us.

The "Digital Economy Bill" expands government control over the internet

This is our second guest post. The first is available here.

Dominique Lazanski is an experienced digital consultant and a regular writer and commentator on Internet policy and regulation from a free market perspective. She has over 10 years of experience in Silicon Valley with spells at Yahoo! and Apple and has spent the last several years in London as a consultant to the music industry and media agencies.

The Times reports that Lord Mandelson will use today's debate on the Digital Economy Bill to announce his intention to continue with government plans to cut off internet access for users who illegally download music.

The Digital Britain report, released in June of this year, outlined the government’s plans to make the UK more "digitally competitive and engaged".  A crackdown on illegal file sharing was among its many proposals.  In short, the government would mandate that all ISPs (Internet Service Providers) monitor file sharing activity on their networks and cut off those who engage in illegal activites.

This may not seem like a big deal.  But when one looks at the implementation proposals in the Digital Britain plan (which is, perhaps deliberately, very long and very obscure) this is in fact a gross expansion of government power for several reasons:

• First, in order to implement network monitoring the ISPs themselves must incur the costs of making the monitoring happen. The government is now telling businesses how they must spend their money. ISPs will be forced to change how they conduct their business too – ISPs will move from being simply Internet providers and become Internet monitors as well

• Second, and much more worrying, is that the government intends to “provide for backstop powers for Ofcom to place additional conditions on ISPs to reduce or prevent copyright infringement …” Essentially, the government will allow Ofcom to dictate and control how the ISPs monitor and cut off their users.

• Finally, there will be a “trigger mechanism” which would give ISPs and rights holders incentives to make this whole thing work. The idea of “trigger mechanism” was vague enough that a consultation by the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS) was held to further define what this is. In flushing this out in the consultation BIS decided that it would be best to give the Secretary of State the power to grant Ofcom the necessary power it needs to not only demand the suspension of user accounts, but to force ISPs to give over data and information of those users. This means that the government would circumvent due process and give power directly to Ofcom to make legal decisions about how we use the Internet.

If passed in November, the Digital Economy Bill will allow for the legal implementation of Digital Britain – including the discussed file sharing proposals. Let us hope that it doesn’t pass because the government shouldn't control our Internet access. If it does pass, then a Tory government should repeal it.

If you would like to contribute a guest post, please contact us.

Britain's libel laws are killing investigative journalism

This is our first guest post.

Willard Foxton has been a journalist for 6 years. He has published stories in papers around the world, and has covered everything from quaint welsh literary festivals to the Israel-Lebanon war. He recently presented the BBC's flagship documentary on the Madoff Scandal, "The Madoff Hustle".

My name is Willard Foxton, and I've recently lost my job.

I know what you're thinking: that's hardly unusual in this day and age. But keep reading, because I lost my job as a result of an injustice which threatens our democracy - Britain's appalling libel laws.

Until this month, I was the editor of the magazine arm of Chambers and Partners. You may not have heard of them unless you're a lawyer, but if you were a lawyer, you'd be impressed. Chambers and Partners ("Chambers") is a publisher which produces impeccably researched books and magazines on lawyers and the law.

When I started, the publisher told me he wanted me to revamp and relaunch Chambers' flagship magazine, Client Report. It had been a fairly dry quarterly magazine publishing surveys, but they wanted something more exciting, more investigative - a magazine exposing the great deeds and great misdeeds of the legal profession.

So Chambers Report was born. An investigative, bi-monthly title, with a specific focus on actually investigating things, rather than rearranging the words in law firm press releases. For a while this was all going brilliantly - for example, the magazine ran an in-depth exposé of a scumbag called Andrew Nulty who had become Britain's highest earning lawyer by stealing money from Miners dying of lung disease.

He was exposed, so hooray, triumph, joy - the villain fled the country, and to the best of my knowledge is now sunning himself on a heavily guarded yacht off the Spanish coast. So, there we were, doing good, exposing the truth, generally doing what journalists are supposed to do. And because our magazine was bankrolled by a highly respected millionaire publisher, rather than thin lipped, bloodless accountants who only care about the bottom line, I had the freedom to send my staff off to investigate all kinds of shenanigans that no-one else would touch, because of the fear of libel. We were looking into the solicitor's links with Trafigura, investigating shocking levels of sexism at city firms and probing the closely guarded secrets of the libel lawyers themselves.

Libel, for those who aren't law students, lawyers, or Guardian readers with Twitter accounts, is a type of law which says you can't say untrue things about people, and if you do, you have to pretty much crush them under a ton of money to make up for it. Well, that's what it's supposed to do. However, in the last 15 years or so, powerful people have started using Britain's archaic and creaking libel system to stop anyone saying anything about them, true or not. I was the victim of this law.

For those not working in the slowly dying print industry, libel is the big bad nightmare of most of the publishing companies we have left. The dull money men fear and hate libel in the UK - it is incredibly expensive to defend a libel action, and absolutely catastrophically expensive if you lose.

The best defence to libel is for the story to be absolutely true. So true it is all but irrefutable. So true, that only a frothing madman would sue you. This is the way I was taught at the BBC, and I brought the ethic with me to the new job.

The essence of the story is this - a large British law firm expanded lavishly in the Middle East, and this expansion had gone catastrophically wrong. We wanted to tell the world about what had gone wrong, and why it had happened.

The story wasn't written by me, it was written by one of my staff. However, I passed it fit for publication, as I felt it was an important story worth publishing. We fact-checked it extensively, included no single sourced stuff - we only used things which had been confirmed by senior people at the firm, mid-level people at the firm, and the firm's clients. We were sure it was all true.

We called up the firm in question, and asked them bare-facedly, "is all of this stuff true?" - and they harrumphed, and then a very senior figure in the firm grudgingly admitted that yes, it was all true. This is what in journalism is called "The Reynolds Defence" - we had asked the parties concerned if it was true, and they'd said it was. This makes your position much stronger in libel terms, as, well, if they say it's true, then you're set. We didn't receive a writ from the firm. This was because they accepted that the story was entirely true.

Still, there was one more thing that we could have done. There was one person who was universally blamed for a large part of the disaster. His superiors, his colleagues, his clients, even other practitioners in the region all confirmed that most of this was his fault. We had interviewed him, and surprise, surprise, his story was the only one which didn't fit the overall pattern. We had quotes about his involvement in every aspect of the disaster - from massively ambitious hiring policies, to scuppering multi-million dollar deals through ineptitude.

So, in those circumstances, I decided not to Reynolds this guy. We had a ton of evidence - and with lawyers it's become standard practice not to inform. Why? If we did inform him, the likely result would be an injunction, preventing us from printing, and another magazine stealing our story. As a bi-monthly magazine, whose primary competition was weekly, we constantly lived in fear of being scooped by our rivals.

I have since checked with the National Union of Journalists, and several libel lawyers  - all of whom I agreed I did the right thing, on both ethical and legal grounds, by not informing this individual. The smart among you will have by now realised that the Reynolds defence is all but unusable in situations like this - what for years has been a defence for libel has now become yet another weapon in the hands of the rich, powerful and unscrupulous. If you don't tell them, you are more open to libel law - if you do tell them, you story will probably be injunctioned out of existence.

However, in this case, the evidence was so strong (right down to senior people referring off the record to this individual as "the worst person we have ever hired"), I felt totally confident that we were safe.

I was wrong. Really, really quite wrong.

We received not only a libel writ from this individual, but also a list of pretty insane demands - which essentially added up to us republishing the article blaming everyone but him and flagging up a number of awards he had won. He also sent us a warning that in the United Arab Emirates, where he is based, slandering individuals of his status is a crime. A crime punishable by 2 years imprisonment and probably, we joked in the office, several hundred lashes.

Well, apart from the fact that Dubai was off my list of holiday destinations, we didn't have much to worry about. Because the story was absolutely true. 100% true. We had tons of interviews on tape. We had told the truth about someone. He could take it to court, and we would almost certainly win.

But there's the problem. To successfully defend my article, I would probably have had to have put my career on hold for a couple of years, and it will cost me (or my publisher) perhaps £25,000, I am advised, because if he lost, it would be almost impossible for a UK court to coerce my costs from him. And if I lost, then it will cost me roughly £500,000. Fighting and winning is bad enough; fighting and losing would be disastrous, even for a major publisher.

It's not just the publisher who could get sued either - because of the state of our libel laws, our distributors, our internet host, everyone even connected to us or the toxic-but-true article could be sued.

My employer, faced with this quandary, and the not-at-all-concerning prospect of lashings in a public square, decided to shut me down, moving back to dry, uncontroversial surveys, and fire me. He sat me down in his office, told me he respected me as a journalist - respected me so much, in fact that he wants me to keep writing for his publishing firm - but said that libel scared him far too much to take risks.

So there you go. A rich man in the emirates launches a libel writ against a UK publication for writing true things, and the publication bottles it. I lost my job; the journalist who wrote the story received a written warning about his conduct. Why? Because we uncovered and exposed the truth.

I think this story is illustrative of what our system of libel law does: it's not so much that critical stories can’t be written, but that they won’t be written twice. For most journalists (and their employers) the potential for a libel case is a powerful deterrent to criticism: the pieces aren’t worth the hassle. Most writers won’t take the risk of their jobs. Most publishers won't take the risk of losing the money.

And with libel laws like ours, who can blame them?

If you would like to contribute a guest post, contact us.