Overbearing state
24/06/2011
23/06/2011
13/06/2011
Links of the day Monday 13th June 2011
Daniel Hamilton: It’s time to defend our freedom and lift this ban
Toxic Plankton feeds on Android Market for two months
Royston's ANPR surveillo-plan goes to ICO
Labour and liberty: Do the rights thing
Taxman recruits tax-collecting robots
Turkey arrests Anonymous suspects after DDoS protest
Facebooking juror heads for trial
Hacker criminals plant fake news to discredit security researchers
Woman caged for daring to film a council meeting on her mobile phone
Big Brother Watch frequently receives reports of the Police deploying heavy-handed tactics against members of the public, but the case of 49 year old Jacqui Thompson from Carmarthen is a truly shocking example of gross disproportionality.
The parish councillor landed herself in trouble with the Police after attending a Carmartenshire Council meeting and filming proceedings to upload the video to a local blog examining planning concerns. When she refused to leave the meeting at the request of council officers she was forcibly rejected from the meeting by four Police officers and held at a Police station for several hours.
Full details of this incident are available on the Daily Mail website.
No right-thinking or rational person would agree that Mrs Thompson deserved to be subjected to such an ordeal. She deserves an apology not only from the Police, but from Carmartenshire Council. Why on earth should a member of the public be prevented from fiming a public meeting of such obvious interest to the wider community?
Hat-tip: @christianjmay
Sainsbury's introduces scheme to look out for unusual purchasing patterns
Sainsbury’s are trialling a strange new method of training for their staff to spot odd patterns of shopping. The scheme comes with government backing and is designed to determine if shoppers are carers who do not realise they are entitled to financial support from the state. Some critics have called it state-sponsored spying into people’s private lives.
Staff will be taught to look out for unusual shopping habits which indicate the purchasing of food for a dependent, such as using two baskets and paying for them separately. Customers picking up prescriptions for others will also be quizzed on their situation. If they reveal they are caring for someone they will be directed to a stand in the store by a carers’ charity. A pilot scheme in Torbay, Devon lasted for two months and led to 140 people asking for help.
This seems to be a rather peculiar way of letting people know about the support they are entitled to. Firstly because it will only affect the customers of Sainsbury’s rather than all the other large supermarkets. Secondly, people in general do not like the idea of being judged on their purchases. As everyone buys different things when shopping, it can be very hard to determine what constitutes ‘unusual’ purchases.
Daniel Hamilton, Director of Big Brother Watch, said:
“It strikes me as something that will make a lot of people uncomfortable. They are trying to do the right thing but they have to be careful about how they do it.”
Jacki Connor, Sainsbury’s ‘colleague engagement director’, said:
“Research shows that around 6.4million people in the UK care for sick or disabled love ones but many are not receiving the help and support they need.”
There may be a variety of reasons for customers to purchase items separately, or to pick up a prescription for someone else. If they are constantly directed to charity groups they may become offended. Even if staff are trained to try and be as tactful as possible, it is very likely that some customers will find the scheme intrusive.
Although few would argue that the reasoning behind this idea is anything but good intentions, it seems like there are more obvious ways to let carers know about how to get the support they need. Posters and leaflets would do the same job without putting people in embarrassing situations. Asking checkout staff to make decisions on the domestic situations of customers based on the contents of their trolley and some basic training seems ill-judged.
Sainsbury’s are trialling a strange new method of training for their staff to spot odd patterns of shopping. The scheme comes with government backing and is designed to determine if shoppers are carers who do not realise they are entitled to financial support from the state. Some critics have called it state-sponsored spying into people’s private lives.
Staff will be taught to look out for unusual shopping habits which indicate the purchasing of food for a dependent, such as using two baskets and paying for them separately. Customers picking up prescriptions for others will also be quizzed on their situation. If they reveal they are caring for someone they will be directed to a stand in the store by a carers’ charity. A pilot scheme in Torbay, Devon lasted for two months and led to 140 people asking for help.
This seems to be a rather peculiar way of letting people know about the support they are entitled to. Firstly because it will only affect the customers of Sainsbury’s rather than all the other large supermarkets. Secondly, people in general do not like the idea of being judged on their purchases. As everyone buys different things when shopping, it can be very hard to determine what constitutes ‘unusual’ purchases.
Daniel Hamilton, Director of Big Brother Watch, said:
“It strikes me as something that will make a lot of people uncomfortable. They are trying to do the right thing but they have to be careful about how they do it.”
Jacki Connor, Sainsbury’s ‘colleague engagement director’, said:
“Research shows that around 6.4million people in the UK care for sick or disabled love ones but many are not receiving the help and support they need.”
There may be a variety of reasons for customers to purchase items separately, or to pick up a prescription for someone else. If they are constantly directed to charity groups they may become offended. Even if staff are trained to try and be as tactful as possible, it is very likely that some customers will find the scheme intrusive.
Although few would argue that the reasoning behind this idea is anything but good intentions, it seems like there are more obvious ways to let carers know about how to get the support they need. Posters and leaflets would do the same job without putting people in embarrassing situations. Asking checkout staff to make decisions on the domestic situations of customers based on the contents of their trolley and some basic training seems ill-judged.
08/06/2011
Links of the day Wednsday 8th June
Please note these are articles and opinions we found interesting, however they do not necessarily represent the views of Big Brother Watch
Is this just ‘ID cards without the cards’?
UK watchdog looking into Facebook face-tech row
Scottish Licensed Trade Association have called for huge increases in the price of alcohol
Maximum fine raised to £2m for telcos that don't cough up network data
Facebook sorry over face tagging launch
Prison rejects ACLU backlash by refusing to back down on porn for inmates
Prisoners in Thailand kept 'shackled and cramped'
06/06/2011
Students at De Montfort University could be placed under constant surveillance
Students at the De Montfort University in Leicester have raised concerns about a new chip being placed in their ID cards which monitors the attendance at lectures and tutorials.
The system works by using the Wi-Fi network around the campus to track the location of all students with a chipped ID card, the network will then log who is attending classes and who is not. The plan was discussed and subsequently approved at a meeting of the university’s executive board, and a further consultation will now occur.
Although many universities use cards to swipe in and out of lectures for security reasons, this represents a worrying deviation, with all students effectively monitored at all times when on campus. This could potentially be used to track the movements of those involved in protest groups or minority groups wrongly suspected of being involved in terrorism.
English language and media student Manisha Hellan, 19, said:
“You come to university to be treated like an adult, not a child. As long as you get your work done, whether you go to lectures or not should be your choice. I understand the reasoning behind it but my concern is what else it could be used for – it's a bit Big Brother.”
Aaron Porter, the outgoing president of the National Union of Students, believes the system is open to abuse. He said:
“Those who stand to pay increasing fees for the privilege of studying will baulk at the prospect of being treated like inmates under surveillance. Software allowing universities to keep constant tabs on students has the potential to be abused.”
“Any university seeking to teach such a practical lesson in Orwell studies has its work cut out in seeking to convince students that forced exposure to round-the-clock monitoring will not infringe on their privacy or dignity.”
A DMU spokeswoman responded:
"We are currently exploring whether or not to use an electronic student attendance monitoring system. No decision has yet been made."
Considering De Montfort University have opted to charge the maximum £9,000 fees from 2012, some students may feel that this is a high price to pay to be under constant surveillance. A simple swipe card is sufficient to monitor attendance if there are serious concerns about security, but this is a step too far and Big Brother Watch would like to see it cancelled before it comes into effect. The system is hardly fool proof in any case, as one person could take 10 cards into a lecture hall to give the impression that all 10 students are present.
The government must lift the ban on using intercept evidence
Regular visitors to the Big Brother Watch blog will be aware that BBW has long campaigned for a change in existing laws to allow intercept evidence to be used in terrorist trials.
Big Brother Watch Director Daniel Hamilton has today outlined the case for the ban to be lifted in an article for the Total Politics magazine's 'The Idea' feature:
"As long as the ban on the admissibility of intercept evidence remains in place, so do the many strange anomalies connected to it. While British courts cannot hear domestic intercept evidence, they frequently secure convictions based on overseas intercepts. Similarly, British intercepts can be used in prosecutions taking place overseas. While a conversation recorded on a hidden bug is admissible in court, a recorded phone call or intercepted email is not.
"To date, the government has opted to set aside fundamental privacy concerns in order to pursue the IMP. Such a programme, the British public has been told, will “make us safer”.
"Given that the majority of terrorist offences are committed by small groups of individuals, often operating outside the confines of mainstream society, it’s difficult to see how the IMP could possibly be successful in achieving that objective. Pinpointing terrorist activity among a database of billions of unique communications is akin to searching for a needle in a haystack. All the IMP achieves is the creation of the most invasive and intrusive database in history."
You can view the extended piece here.
02/06/2011
Divisive CCTV project in Birmingham finally dismantled
One of the longest running campaigns of Big Brother Watch came to a conclusion this week as the final camera of the ill-fated ‘Project Champion’ was removed in Birmingham. Big Brother Watch have been following this story for over a year now, ever since the 218 camera network was installed in Washwood Heath and Sparkbrook, predominantly Muslim areas of the city. There were constant suspicions that the project was based on racial profiling and the financial backing came from the counter-terrorism unit.
There was an almost instantaneous response from local residents, who had understandable concerns about this system which tracked the movements of every resident entering or leaving the area. It was later revealed that there were an additional 72 covert cameras in the same location. A local campaign, Birmingham Against Spy Cameras, was set up to challenge the project.
After a public outcry, a farcical situation developed where the police were forced to cover every camera with plastic bags while they decided what to do with them. It was finally decided in May that the local community were fervently against the project and it would be dismantled. Now that they have been removed, it is thought they will be utilised at the London Olympics next year.
Here at Big Brother Watch we hope this terribly flawed exercise will serve as an example to police forces around the country of how not to utilise CCTV. It should not be used to target specific elements of society in this way, especially when there is no evidence of terrorist activity. This proves that pressure from the public can have a real effect on the use of CCTV. The fallacy that people are more than happy to be under permanent surveillance simply doesn’t stand up.
Former Big Brother Watch Director Alex Deane gave a very well received speech to a packed Birmingham hall last year, which can be seen here.
01/06/2011
School to enforce baggy uniform to deter paedophiles
A school in Glasgow has provoked derision and disbelief after sending a letter to all parents demanding pupils wear baggy clothes in an effort to deter paedophiles. The King’s Park Secondary School sent the following note:
“We believe an appropriate school uniform protects children from being targeted by sexual predators. There is recent evidence in south Glasgow of adults photographing schoolgirls in short skirts and schoolgirls/boys in tight trousers, then grooming them through the internet. We must do all we can to keep our children safe. A modest school uniform is more appropriate than fashion skirts, trousers or tops.”
Despite local police confirming there have been no incidents of schoolchildren in the area being targeting by predators, the school are concerned about the case of Barry McClusky, who pretended to be a schoolgirl online and successfully contacted 49 girls between 2007 and 2010.
Boys will be forced to wear loose-fitting trousers while girls must wear knee-length pleated skirts in a measure which one parent described as “paranoid in the extreme”. The items must be bought from a pre-approved collection at Marks and Spencer, and failure to comply may mean being banned from going on school trips. Parents have responded with disdain:
“There is no way an ugly uniform is going to deter a predator and determined sex offender.”
“This is just paranoid in the extreme. There are better ways to safeguard children than spreading needless panic.”
"It is laughable to think the uniform can act as some sort of paedophile-repellent.”
Despite the lack of support for the idea, a spokesman for Glasgow City Council claimed there had been extensive consultation on the idea before it was decided upon. Eileen Prior, Chief executive of the Scottish Parent Teacher Council said:
“Creating a link between school uniform and paedophilia seems to be a dangerous and unhelpful one for everyone involved. It implies that young people are in some way responsible for the activities of paedophiles, which is an extremely dangerous argument and one which has echoes of the comments sometimes made around rapists and women's dress."
"If there is evidence of activity by a paedophile in the area, then police and parents should be informed and involved. Many parents - and indeed young people themselves - are keen to have a dress code in school which requires everyone in the school community to dress in a way which is appropriate for a working environment.”
There are so many things wrong with this draconian measure it is difficult to know where to start. At the most basic level is it simply absurd to think looser trousers will change the behaviour of predatory adults. This sort of measure is also very dangerous for local communities. It has never been necessary before, so the impression given to parents is that there are suddenly a lot more paedophiles in the area, creating an environment of fear. Finally, from a purely financial point of view, expecting all parents to go out and immediately buy new uniform items in the midst of a financial crisis is unfair.
If the police are concerned about the activity of paedophiles in the area they should deal with it directly, it is not the role of schools to come up with ludicrous ideas to deter predators.
27/05/2011
Links of the day Friday 27th May 2011
Dominique Lazanski: How the EU 'cookie' directive is impacting the UK
Patriot Act surveillance provisions extended in nick of time
Kenneth Clarke data protection speech
Civil rights group calls for standardised European copyright laws
Google wants you to leave your wallet at home to get LBS discounts while you shop
Ratko Mladic arrested: Europe's most wanted man seized in Serbia
Dan Hodges - Creating a landslide
Shane Greer – Lock 'em up
Devizes' CCTV cameras face funding shortfall
23/05/2011
UK government censors YouTube videos
Big Brother Watch has been alerted to the fact that the UK government have been submitting requests to Google asking for certain Youtube videos and search results to be censored. When trying to access a blocked video, an error message is shown instead:
“This content is not available in your country due to a government removal request.”
YouTube Help gives the following explanation:
"YouTube occasionally receives requests from governments around the world to remove content from our site, and as a result, YouTube may block specific content in order to comply with local laws in certain countries."
At the moment it is unclear what types of video are being selected by the government for blocking, however Google provides a website detailing how many requests each country’s government have made for the removal of data.
18/05/2011
Supreme Court determines chief constables refusing to delete DNA of innocent people are acting unlawfully
Finally, three years after the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) came to the conclusion that holding the DNA of innocent people is unlawful, the Supreme Court have reached a similar verdict. The ruling, made today, declares that the existing policy of keeping DNA profiles of people in England and Wales who have been arrested but never convicted of a crime is excessive and violates privacy rights.
Since the ruling by the ECHR (in the case known as S & Marper v. United Kingdom) in February 2008 more than 200,000 additional innocent people have been added to the DNA register, bringing the total to over 1.1 million. The guidelines of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) state that chief constables can order the deletion of DNA profiles and fingerprints only when there are “exceptional circumstances.” One infamous example is the immigration minister Damian Green who was arrested in 2008 on suspicion of misconduct. He subsequently asked for his DNA to be deleted, which the Met agreed to do.
Lord Dyson said in the Supreme Court ruling:
"It is appropriate to grant a declaration that the present ACPO guidelines ... are unlawful because, as clearly demonstrated by Marper, they are incompatible with the ECHR.”
"It is important that, in such an important and sensitive area as the retention of biometric data by the police, the court reflects its decision by making a formal order to declare what it considers to be the true legal position. But it is not necessary to go further."
However, unfortunately the judges have still failed to make any immediate changes to the situation, or set out a timeline for the eventual deletion of the date. The government have previously signalled their intentions to bring the legislation into force later this year as part of the protection of freedoms bill as proposed by the home secretary Theresa May.
It is scandalous that even after three years these 1.1 million innocent people still have their DNA on the national database. The government must ensure the protection of freedoms bill currently going through parliament does not get watered down or challenged, these people must be given back the security of their biometric data.
The choices are simple, either all convicted criminals have their DNA on the database, or every British citizen has their DNA on the database. It is grossly unfair for this many innocent people who have never been convicted of any crime to suffer the same indignity of criminals for no legitimate reason.
12/05/2011
Police 'Geotime' software to track suspect movements
A report published by the Daily Mail this morning has highlighted the fact the Metropolitan Police have ordered a software package called 'Geotime' - "a security programme used by the U.S. military which tracks suspects' movements and communications and displays them on a three-dimensional graphic".
The software, which will be trialled in London before any decisions are made about its use across the UK, brings together information from social networking websites such as Facebook, financial transactions and mobile 'phone records in order to present an in-depth picture of an individual's movements.
While the BBW team are not luddites and are indeed keen to see the Police adopt new technology in order to fight crime, their decision to adopt technology designed for theatres of war in order to track members of the public is deeply concerning. Quite simply, the ability to build up such a comprehensive record of any person's movements represents a significant threat to personal privacy.
It is crucial, if this technology is to be rolled out further than London, that Police forces reassure the public that this technology will be used in only the most serious of cases, not as a tool to help solve low-level crimes.
11/05/2011
One Year On: The Coalition and Civil Liberties
Big Brother Watch has today (11th May) released a research paper outlining the progress the Coalition Government has made on civil liberties issues during its first year in office.
The paper concludes that, while real progress has been made, many of the Coalition's promises to roll back the power of the state remain unfulfilled.
Click here to download the report
Commenting on the report, Big Brother Watch Director Daniel Hamilton said:
"The Coalition has some real achievements to speak off.
"Ministers should be congratulated for taking steps to scrap ID cards and remove the profiles of the one million innocent people held on the national DNA database. They should also be praised for doing away with the ContactPoint database of children’s details and reforming the criminal record check regime.
"They do, however, have more work to do.
"Police stop and search powers remain in place, Control Orders remain virtually unreformed and there has been no opt-out from the European Arrest Warrant. When it comes to E-Borders, the Summary Care Record and Intercept Modernisation Programme, they have continued to implement the previous government’s policies – warts and all."
04/05/2011
76 year old woman detained for 7 hours for feeding pigeons
This morning's Telegraph carries a genuinely shocking story about mother and daughter Monica and Janet McIntosh who have were arrested and detained for seven hours for the very worst of cruel and depraved crimes: feeding pidgeons.
Now don't get us wrong - the BBW team loath pidgeons, or "flying rats" as we have been known to call them - but to detain an 76-year-old lady and her daughter for seven hours under suspicion of commiting a public nuisance offence and to later seize her house keys, bank statements and cheque books is nothing short of outrageous. If the lady in question was, as the article suggests, annoying neighbours with her behaviour, would it not have been more proportionate for the Police to have had a quiet word asking her to desist?
You can view the whole article here.
The bully-boy tactics deployed by Cumbria County Constabulary closely mirror those used against Vanessa Kelly, a Sandwell lady who was handed a fixed penalty notice of £75 for feeling ducks in her local park. Thankfully, the fine was cancelled following the intervention of Big Brother Watch. Similar such cases were also seen in Sandwell, where a woman was fined for dropping a tissue while running for the bus and a resident threatened with prosecution unless she removed a "welcome" plaque from her garden gnomes.
When will they leave us alone?
03/05/2011
Drivers to be fined £80 for littering – even if it wasn’t them
In what seems like a continuing war on motorists, drivers will face £80 fines which could rise to £2,500 for litter being thrown from their vehicle, even if the driver themselves did not throw it.
Ministers are considering changing the law via the Localism Bill, currently progressing through Parliament, so that motorists are responsible for any rubbish which comes out of their own vehicles. Council Officers will take down number plates as well as using CCTV cameras to identify offenders. Fines will then be issued to the owner of the vehicle. If the owner cannot identify who actually dropped the litter, they must pay the £80 fine. If drivers refuse, they could face a magistrates’ court, with a fine up to £2,500. This is designed to stop appeals and to scare motorists into paying quickly.
Clyde Loakes, vice-chairman of the Local Government Association's environment board said that litter louts are currently getting away scot-free, and closing the current loophole should cover some of the £850m needed to keep streets clean.
"It's time to get tough on lazy, selfish people who toss rubbish from moving cars and expect other people to cover the cost of cleaning it up," he added.
The potential change to the law comes after councils and environmental campaigners have pressed for years, claiming the current system makes it nearly impossible to prosecute drivers for littering.
Of course littering can be a problem on roads, as well as occasionally being dangerous when vehicles are moving at speed, but this seems like yet another attempt to raise council funds by enforcing harsh penalties on drivers, who may not have even known about the littering. Local councils should look at reducing their costs in this financial climate before spying on people in cars in an effort to impose draconian fines.
27/04/2011
Draconian Royal Wedding security measures "impossible" in the US
Over at the Fox News blog, there's a very interesting article which suggests that many of the security measures being taken by the Police in advance of the Royal Wedding on Friday would be impossible to implement in the United States.
While the Police are likely to roll out many of their usual law enforcement tactics - random stop an searches, carefully monitored CCTV footage and beefed-up patrols - they have requested that a whole raft of hugely draconian restrictions are imposed in the Westminster area on the day of the wedding. Among these measures is a temporary ban on an unnamed iPhone application in the vicinity of Buckingham Place and Westminster Abbey. The Police will apparently be "monitoring use of the application on the wedding day and arrest anyone caught uploading unauthorized images".
In the United States, such measures would simply not be possible as a result of regulations which ban Police from deploying overly-invasive tactics in the name of "pre-emptive Policing". While US law enforcement officers are, for example, able to set up controlled areas into which people will be only granted access if they agree to be searched, their powers of random stop-and-search are hugely curtailed.
While articles on Fox News are often greeted with howls of derision, it's well worth a read. You can view the whole piece here .
Hat-tip: AW
19/04/2011
A response to anti-smoking MP Bob Blackman
Bob Blackman MP has written a piece for Conservative Home extolling the virtues of the recent changes in legislation for the sale of cigarettes, including the display ban. However, there are a number of contradictions and problems with his article.
Early on he states:
“It is right that the days of intrusive governing are over but we cannot simply allow such damaging behaviour to continue with insufficient support available for those who wish to rid their lives of this addiction. I welcome that fact that David Cameron has set up a behavioural insight team in the heart of his Government to help design an environment that is conducive to healthy behaviour.”
This is a clear oxymoron. Either the Government operates a policy of targeted intrusions into personal freedom, or it does not. To select which elements of liberty and choice are left to the populace and which are decided by Government is a return to the nanny-state approach employed by New Labour.
Continue reading "A response to anti-smoking MP Bob Blackman " »
18/04/2011
US law enforcement agencies censoring European gambling websites
By David Atherton
As a poker player of 6 years my Saturday is often taken up playing in tournaments of up to 1,000 people. However yesterday (17th April 2011) the numbers seemed to be down.
The lack of Americans was due to the Federal Bureau of Investigation closing down three of the biggest sites Full Tilt Poker, Absolute Poker and PokerStars and seizing their funds. The owners of the sites have been charged with conducting and financing illegal gambling and accepting funds via electronic bank transfer. Those who have been arrested to face up to five years in jail and a fine of $250,000 and those yet not arrested have had warrants issued against them.
Curiously American operated sites such as WSOP, Bodog and Carbon Poker are still accepting deposits and their websites unaffected, but the European owned and operated ones have FBI warnings. The Americans tried to ban internet poker (with the support of the casino industry) not by banning playing on the internet but making electronic payments illegal via the 2006 Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA). The Europeans took the American Government to the World Trade Organization (WTO) and so far have lost every single round.
Economics and naked protectionism aside this is a very pernicious development in internet censorship.
The European sites are legitimate businesses who advertise on TV and their addresses and telephone numbers are in the public domain. However the government sees fit to stop apparently censor the internet to stop consenting adults having an absorbing and entertaining pastime.
The slippery slope beckons
13/04/2011
Unborn baby slapped with an ASBO!
The ASBO policy reached new levels of incredulity today as a couple received a letter threatening to issue their son with an ASBO. This all seems reasonably standard, until you realise the child in question is 36 weeks old and therefore hasn’t been born yet. Charlotte and her husband Damien Childs were left dumbfounded when the letter dropped through their mailbox, explaining that anti-social behaviour had occurred in their area and their son was suspected of being involved. They were invited to a meeting with local police to discuss their son’s bad behaviour and decide upon a way of moving forward. The letter stated:
“The complaints are regarding groups of young people congregating and causing a general nuisance. Your child has been identified as being part of this group. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the nature of the complaints and the best way to resolve the issues.”
After contacting the police to inquire how on Earth their foetus had managed to attend an anti-social event while still inside the womb, the authorities admitted their mistake and apologised. In a strange twist of fate, the ‘youth’ suspected was named as George, the intended middle name of the baby. The couple have decided to change it now rather than tempt fate. Hilariously, Yvonne Roberts wrote a parody theorising that this could occur, but it took 4 years to become reality. She wrote:
“What a wonderful boost to the confidence of a first-time mother! Barely four months pregnant and already the recipient of a FASBO, a foetus ASBO, for her unborn child plus a weekly visit from a health visitor until the age of two to ensure that the potential criminal in the womb doesn't begin nicking baby rattles before teething is done.”
In a typically humourless response, the ‘Anti-social behaviour co-ordinator’ Angie Beal said:
“In cases of low-level anti-social behaviour involving children, we often contact the parents and ask to meet face-to-face to try to resolve the issue. We always address these letters to "the parents or guardians'' of the child, so would ask anyone who receives a letter concerning a child who isn't theirs to discard it.”
Thankfully Lincolnshire Police have realised this probably isn’t a good use of police time and public money, their spokesman James Newall said: “This is clearly an administrative mistake and we apologise for any offence it may have caused. Obviously there will be no follow-up from our end.”
08/04/2011
May pushes for expansion of the Passenger Name Records scheme
Over at The Guardian, Alan Travis has written a piece about the Home Secretary's attempts to push European leaders into adopt a scheme designed to collect even more details from passengers travelling in and out of the European Union.
While some information is already shared between EU member states and the United States, Theresa May's proposal would see information on travellers' movements logged for up to six months and then stored in an anonymised form for up to five years.
It's deeply regrettable that the Home Secretary wishes to adopt such an invasive and illberal policy.
The Passenger Name Records scheme would represent a significant threat to the personal privacy of travellers. While a limited amount of information is already shared among EU member state, Theresa May's PRN proposal would see personal data retained for up to six years. The state has no reason – and no right – to track people’s movements in this way, let alone to log their credit card details and the identities of their travel companions.
A government elected on a promise to scale back the database state should be an opponent of this type of policy, not its biggest cheerleader.
01/04/2011
Police investigate dangerous use of marshmallows
The case of police time being wasted ‘investigating’ damage to daffodils the other week seemed like it couldn’t be beaten for ludicrousness, but Devon & Cornwall Constabulary have managed it. They are currently investigating a common assault after a 13 year old from Torpoint Community College allegedly threw a marshmallow at another pupil. The boy called his parents to tell them, who decided the issue was serious enough to ring the police about. The group involved were taken out of their lessons and asked to give statements on the incident.
This news comes in the wake of the revelation that Devon and Cornwall Police has the lowest proportion of officers on frontline duty in the country. With resources already tight you would think someone at the constabulary would realise when a case like this is not worth investigating. Police said they were dealing with an ‘incident’ which happened near the school, and ‘further inquiries are being made.’ We can only hope they manage to solve this heinous crime as soon as possible.
25/03/2011
Britain’s first town with nowhere to hide
The town of Royston in Hertfordshire is to become Britain’s first ‘ring of steel’ town, with hidden Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras installed on every single road in and out of the town by next month. Town bosses rolled out the usual platitudes to explain the introduction of this nefarious system:
“…make Royston the safest town in Hertfordshire”
“They give the police hard evidence as they track known villains.”
“It will make us the safest town in Hertfordshire and you won’t be able to drive in or out of the town without being clocked.”
“We will be the only town in Britain that will have ANPR on every approach to the town.”
The fact that Geraint Burnell, the town centre manager, considers it a benefit that no one will be able to enter or leave the town without being ‘clocked’ is a shocking example of the mindset of those without an understanding of the privacy concerns of the general populace. Chris Farrier, a spokesman for the civil liberties group No CCTV, expressed serious concerns about the dangers of systems like this:
“It is a hugely worrying development. It has been developed with no public scrutiny and government legislation. This is the biggest surveillance network that the British public have never heard of. The people of Royston had better get informed because their one is being described as a ‘ring of steel.”
There is no particular reason for installing this system, or particular set of crimes which the police wish to solve by using it. It will be a gigantic waste of tax payers’ money during a time when councils should be searching high and low for wasteful expenditure to be cut.
The public have not been consulted about this cruel abuse of privacy to monitor and store the movements of everyone who visits the town of Royston on a centralised database for 5 years. The inevitable conclusion is a nationwide network of ANPR cameras, ensuring that all movement of citizens can be monitored. Considering the multitude of civil liberties seen in the past decade, surely councils should realise this is not what the public want.
23/03/2011
18/03/2011
Olympic committee impose draconian rules
By Frank Manning
Tickets for the London Olympics went on sale on Tuesday, but the terms and conditions document, weighing in at an eye-watering 7,350 words, contains some rather draconian rules for those hoping to watch the Games. The London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games (LOCOG) has banned the following items:
"food, alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages, liquids in containers of greater than 100ml in size, umbrellas, horns, whistles, drums, rattles, musical instruments, or any other devices that in the opinion of Locog may disturb a Session (including mobile telephones), flasks, thermoses and in general any material that Locog may deem dangerous or that may cause damage or disruption to a Session."
Without bottles of water and mobile phones, there are likely to be a fair amount of dehydrated people desperately walking around the Olympic Village looking for lost friends and family. LOCOG insist free water will be available in all venues, although whether there will be enough for tens of thousands of people remains to be seen.
There is also the obvious suspicion that these rules are designed with the corporate sponsors in mind, as Coca-Cola and McDonald’s have a monopoly on food and drink within the venues. It seems hard to imagine any genuine reason to ban people bringing their own food in, unless corporate interests are behind it.
While it may be unlikely, LOCOG should seriously reconsider these rules. It would not be good publicity to have visitors suffering from dehydration and losing each other now that mobile phones are a ubiquitous part of society. The alternative is to provide hundreds of rendezvous points and water fountains, surely a more costly option for an Olympics already on a tight budget.
14/03/2011
Darlington councillors furiously protest repeal of RIPA
By Frank Manning
It seems some councillors cannot see the writing on the wall when it comes to councils using covert surveillance to snoop on residents. The Northern Echo reports that Darlington Borough Council considers their use of surveillance (a frankly staggering 124 times since 2007) appropriate.
The Conservative councillor Charles Johnson criticised the Council’s use of the RIPA (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000) last week, instead advocating their use only for serious crimes such as benefit fraud. But Chris McEwan, the Council’s Cabinet Member with the Portfolio for Efficiency and Resources, was bullish in his response:
"I make no apology for using these powers… If people object to the use of these powers, they need to speak to the residents I deal with who are asking for us as a local authority to deal with inconsiderate neighbours who make noise, people who cause anti-social behaviour and shops who sell to underage drinkers.”
Considering those residents have no way of knowing if they themselves have been under surveillance, I wonder if they would appreciate the use of expensive, wasteful and intrusive methods of snooping on local residents. These people have been monitored without their knowledge, simply on the whim of a council, with no accountability and no requirement of reasonable suspicion. How anyone can justify using these methods to deal with something as trivial as noise is astounding.
In a statement which showed his lack of awareness on the issue, another councillor Bill Dixon, claimed:
“Whose civil liberties are we putting first here? I would put the civil liberties of the victims above the civil liberties of the perpetrators…. I don’t understand why something that works so well, and has no history of abuse, is being targeted in this way. It beggars belief.”
Aside from the litany of abuses of the RIPA, discussed at length by Big Brother Watch before, including monitoring a family to check if they lived in a school catchment area, the fact that Mr Dixon does not even realise the damage done to civil liberties by the misuse of the RIPA truly does beggar belief.
Thankfully the coalition has announced that:
“We will ban the use of powers in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) by councils, unless they are signed off by a magistrate and required for stopping serious crime.”
The sooner these changes come into effect and councils no longer have the power to justify these wildly disproportionate levels of surveillance the better for everyone… except Darlington councillors, apparently.
10/03/2011
The "infantilisation" of smokers
There's an excellent article in the Telegraph blog today regarding the "infantilisation" of smokers.
It does a great job in tackling head-on the patrician, nanny-statists who believe it is government's job to regulate our personal preferences and tinker with our freedoms.
"Having already banished smokers from public places – usually on to the streets – the Government now plans to turn them into pariahs, who must furtively request the fuel for their addiction from under the counter. This is precisely the kind of heavy-handed paternalism for which the last government was rightly castigated by those now in office themselves"
Click here to read the full piece.
09/03/2011
Happy No Smoking Day!
Against the backdrop of revolution in Libya and the imposition of a United Nations "no fly" zone in the region, it may have escaped your attention that it is National No Smoking Day.
Unsurprisingly, the Health Secretary Andrew Lansley has found his own special way of marking this occasion...
Not content with increasing taxes on tobacco to sky-high levels, it appears the Health Secretary now wants to go one step further and impose plain packaging on tobacco products. Under the proposed regulations, packets would no longer be able to display the logos of their manufacturers and would not be able to include any other graphics or colours of their choice. The packaging would be standardised in terms of size, rendering one pack of cigarettes indistinguishable from another.
This would be just the latest move by the government to demonise smokers, a group of people who voluntarily choose to consume a perfectly legal product.
The government likes to talk about "freedom" - how about respecting the rights of smokers? Under Andrew Lansley, it appears the nanny state is alive and well.
01/03/2011
The United Arab Emirates has banned Big Brother Watch
Last week, the Big Brother Watch team received an e-mail from a Dubai-based co-conspirator alerting us to problems he was having accessing our blog.
Whenever typed in our website address - as he had been doing for more than a year - he received a message from his ISP informing him that the site was "down" and that a "fault exists" with our server. Our many thousands of daily visitors in the UK - and indeed across the world - were not plagued by the same problems.
Almost a week on, the website remains unavailable in the United Arab Emirates as a result of it failing to conform "with the cultural and religious ethos" of the country. It appears the IP address of the website - and that of the Private Eye magazine - have been blocked by the country’s state-controlled ISP Etisalat. Etisalat, it should be noted, are also the ISP of choice in oases of democracy such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Sudan.
While we can't be sure of the exact reason the UAE has blocked access to our website, our recent post outlining the human rights situation in Eritrea and the means by which Libyans can circumvent Gaddafi's efforts to block internet access can't have helped...
Here's the good news: the UAE's authorities have no means by which they are able to block our weekly newsletter. You can sign up to it by clicking here.
UPDATE: Big Brother Watch Campaign Director Daniel Hamilton has written to the Ambassador His Excellency Abdulrahman Ghanem Almutaiwee protesting the decision. Click here to download a PDF of his letter.
09/02/2011
Are local smoking bans set to become a reality?
Last week, we posted the news of New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg's decision to introduce a ban on smoking in all public places - not just indoors in places such as restaurants, offices and bars, but on the streets and in public parks too.
Given Mayor Bloomberg's used local powers to introduce such a ban, BBW's attention was drawn to an exchange between Steve Baker MP and Health Minister Anne Milton in the House of Commons in October.
Steve Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on the exercise by local authorities of powers restricting smoking in public places.
Anne Milton: Local councils exercise power to restrict smoking in public places in accordance with the guidance for council regulatory officers-'Implementation of smokefree legislation in England', which was compiled by local government regulation (formerly LACORS), the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH) and the Trading Standards Institute. The evidence indicates that the exercise of these powers has been particularly successful in achieving the objectives of the legislation, compliance with the regulations and the protection of people from the harm done by second-hand tobacco smoke, with minimal burden on businesses. During 2006 and early 2007 the Department funded training for local authority officers and for businesses, particularly in the hospitality sector, to assist with the smooth implementation of the regulations. The training carried out by the CIEH was widely recognised at the time as making a significant contribution to the successful implementation of the smokefree law.
With the coaliton commited to a radical agenda of localised decision-making, is it too soon to suspect that local councils in the UK may attempt to implement New York-style outdoor smoking bans in the future? Anne Milton's above answer seems to suggest they have the power to do so.
This week, the Bath Chronicle asks exactly that question. What do you think?
US House of Representatives fails to renew the Patriot Act
Late yesterday night, the United States House of Representatives voted to reject the extension of the Patriot Act - a raft of measures introduced in the months following the 9/11 attacks which had considerable implications for civil liberties in the United States.
Included in the original bill were provisions which watered down the rights of individuals to privacy (something which, while not specifically enshrined in the Constitution, has been affirmed by repeated Supreme Court decisions), allowed Police officials to undertake searches of private property at will, expanded the wire-tapping of private telephone calls and allowed the detention of terror suspects without access to lawyers or full judicial hearings. Indeed, such was alarm at Section 215 of the act which allows the FBI to scan through the library records of terror suspects that a California library felt the need to display a sign warning visitors of the new law.
While the act received the support of the majority of Congressmen, it fell seven votes short of the two thirds majority required in order for it to be automatically extended. 122 Democrats and 26 Republicans - majority of which were elected as Tea Party candidates at the 2010 elections - voted against the bill.
The failure of the bill to be automatically rewnewed signals a considerable shift in attitudes towards anti-terror legislation in Washington since 2001. Indeed, when the bill was first brought to the US Senate for confirmation only one Senator cast a vote against it while in the House of Representatives objections to the bill were confined to a handful of abstentions.
While this is surely not the last we have seen of the Patriot Act, it will be fascinating to see how the crop of new, civil liberties-minded Congressman are able to influence the debate in Washington DC in the next two years of this Congress.
07/02/2011
Homeowners' rights and the Welsh Assembly Government
Householders in Wales could be in for a shock if new rules proposed for home extensions by the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) come into being. Despite being trumpeted as giving "householders greater freedom to extend their properties without needing to apply for planning permission", the new rules would exclude even some very simple little single storey rear extensions, along with most loft conversions, now currently allowed.
The WAG is proposing amendments to householders’ permitted development rights---planning permission you've already got ---granted directly by Parliament itself. Most ordinary houses in Wales have had these rights for over 60 years. The WAG promises to: “Deliver a more permissive regime than exists at present…”. But would their proposals do so?
It seems not.
Continue reading "Homeowners' rights and the Welsh Assembly Government" »
04/02/2011
NYC bans smoking... in parks
The more reactionary and bullying element amongst our American cousins are at it again - they've banned smoking in parks in New York City.
I don't really care whether you like smoking or not. But I do care about whether or not you value freedom. Plainly, these bureaucrats in NYC do not.
This is part of an insidious, ongoing process, of course. Dave Atherton wrote a good guest post giving a broader overview of the subject recently, and Dan covered the recent efforts of the antis in another piece. It's a debate we should all watch with interest and concern because, as I've said before... first, they came for the smoker...
By Alex Deane
You'll note the image. I thought the lady stood for Liberty, not for nannying bullying. Bring me your poor - unless they've sparked up...
01/02/2011
Police spy drones
George Orwell’s “1984” tells the story of a collectivist state controlled by the ruthless Thought Police, who monitor the public through “telescreens”. Through these devices they can watch every person in their society and give orders through loudspeakers.
This story was perhaps intended as a warning, showing how terrible a society could get. In fact “1984” became a chillingly accurate prediction (the book was written in 1949).
Not long after 1984 in real life and the first large-scale trials for the public use of CCTV were underway. By now we have approximately 4.2 million CCTV cameras in operation in the UK. This is over a million more cameras than in communist China, which has a population around 1.3 billion.
In George Orwell’s story there was a “telescreen” in every home, one camera for every fourth person. We have not quite reached this figure yet in the UK – the current ratio is one camera for every fourteen people.
As in the science fiction story, some of these cameras indeed have microphones to listen to what we are saying and speakers so the police can remotely give orders to members of the public. Big Brother might not be watching us, but the police certainly are. The eye in the sky now has ears and a mouth as well. Watching, listening and telling us what to do.
All this is commonly accepted in our society but George Orwell could not have predicted the even more frightening developments in surveillance that have been underway during the past year.
On the 26th of January 2010 in Bootle, the first person was arrested using a remote controlled hovering CCTV device know as the Hicam Microdrone.
This police drone is approximately 3 feet wide, black and nearly silent when in flight. It can be flown manually or set to autonomously patrol the skies up to 500 ft high.
Equipped with full colour CCTV and infrared night vision the drone could literally hover outside your bedroom window and you would not have the slightest idea that it was there, but surely no member of the UK police force would be party to any lewd behaviour?
The latest developments from France currently in use are similar drones that are actually equipped with weapons - flying robot bobbies that can shoot at anyone they choose with rubber bullet guns and 44mm tear gas grenade launchers. Perhaps the most shocking weapons on these robot drones are the LRAD acoustic sound cannon which can be used to control people through directional ear-splitting sound torture and the 50,000 volt electric taser gun.
Considering that over 350 people have died in America as a result of the “non-lethal” taser guns, it seems that death from above or at least torturous pain from above at the hands of the police is coming to a town near you. If you live in the Merseyside area they have already tested the device on you which does not include the optional extras, but the complete abolition of human privacy comes as standard with all models.
Guest post by Elliot Margison
Immigration officer places wife on 'no fly' list
There have been numerous examples over the past couple of years of innocent people being placed on 'no fly' lists around the world. The most famous of these was the late Senator Ted Kennedy who was stopped and questioned by Police at airports in Massachussets on five occasions in 2004. According to media reports, the name "T. Kennedy" was used as an alias by someone on the list of terrorist suspects, thus causing his name to be flagged up.
Confusion aside, the Daily Mail carries news today of an immigration officer who used his access to 'no fly' databases to put his wife on a list of people whose presence in the UK is "not conducive to the public good". As a result, his wife remained with her family in Pakistan for three years until immigration officer's actions were uncovered during an internal review of cases. He has now been sacked.
Big Brother Watch understands the argument for some individuals who have a proven record of involvement in terrorist activities but it is horrifying to think that an immigration officer would have the power to arbitrarily place people on the 'no fly' list without a comprehensive internal review process. What is more concerning is that the actions of the officer in question were only detected after he was earmarked for promotion!
The full story can be found here.
31/01/2011
Gran fined - for picking up litter!
Occasionally, the Big Brother Watch team are confronted with examples of truly mind-blowing stories about the behaviour of local council officials.
The case of Lesley Apps is one such example. While walking through Coventry city centre, the 64 year old grandmother noticed a cigarette wrapper had fallen out of her pocket and onto the pavement below. Noticing her inadvertent littering, she stooped to pick up the wrapper, struggling with back problems as she did it. At that very same moment, a local council official swooped in and issued her with a £50 fine for littering the pavement.
Whatever happened to common sense? (The likely answer is that, in council officer-land, common sense has been surplanted for a culture of commission based fines - the more you issue, the more money you dosh you take home).
The whole torrid tale, which is brought to us c/o the Coventry Telegraph, can be found here.
Hat-tip: PT
28/01/2011
I hear cries of "we must do more..."
At the time of the introduction of the ban on smoking in public spaces, anti-tobacco zealots frequently championed the claim that the new law would lead to a dramatic reduction the amount of people smoking.
Such claims were made with such evangelical zeal that one could have been forgiven for thinking they were backed up with a detailed scientific study - or at least some basis of fact. Not so. Indeed, now such research has been carried out it has proved their claims to be totally bogus.
According to statistics released in the National Statistics Office's annual general lifestyle survey 21% of the public describe themselves as smokers today - the same proportion as in 2007.
The Financial Times carries a quote today from Amanda Sandford, the research manager at Ash, the anti-smoking campaign charity was understandably upset that this sliver of nanny-statism had failed to have the desired effect of controlling people's personal habits.
“It’s a bit disappointing to see that the overall rates of smoking appear to be stagnating. We know how extremely hard it is for people to quit”
Ms Sandford's response was sadly predictable:
"She called for Andrew Lansley, the health secretary, to help reduce the impact of branding by allowing cigarettes to be sold only in plain packets carrying a health warning and to ban their open display in shops to deter children from smoking"
Big Brother Watch have outlined the folly of this position before; most recently with a post from Mahendra Jadeja, a successful independent retailer and a former president of the National Federation of Retailers and Newsagents. You can view Mahendra's post here.
The mantra of the anti-free choice, anti-smoking lobby is increasingly predicable: "if at first regulation doesn't succeed, regulate and regulate again".
David Kato should be honoured
By now I am sure you are all familiar with David Kato, a man who worked hard campaigning for and defending the human rights of GLBT citizens in Uganda.
Mr. Kato was an advocacy officer for Uganda’s Organization of Human Minorities, (SMUG), who was brutally murdered on his way home yesterday.
Mr. Kato’s death has prompted international interest and outcry after many believe that his death was partly linked to his sexuality. Last year Kato sued the Ugandan Rolling Stone newspaper after it labelled him as a homosexual and featured a picture of him with the words “Hang Them” as the headline.
Whilst police in Uganda aren’t calling this a hate crime and deny that the attack was based on sexual orientation, Uganda’s official government policy toward homosexuals must be examined and condemned.
Gay men and women still face routine persecution and harassment as homosexuality is illegal and in 2009 the government introduced a controversial bill which would allow death sentences for certain homosexual acts.
This bill is still being debated in Parliament, and that is why BBW condemns this senseless attack on a man, who dedicated a majority of his life advocating the civil rights and liberties of others. BBW believes in the civil rights and liberties of all people in society.
Mr. Kato’s death was a senseless tragedy and it must be denounced, whilst I recognize that Uganda is a sovereign nation which passes its own laws, the West must rebuke their draconian and appalling discrimination toward homosexuals. It is very disheartening to think that any civilised and democratic nation like Uganda would allow people to be murdered based on their sexuality is a travesty and truly malevolent. In a democracy the rights of all are represented regardless of their sexuality.
I stand with solidarity with President Obama on this issue who has labelled Uganda’s proposed legislation as “odious”.
I would like to further concur with US Secretary Clinton who has called for the matter to be fully investigated and to bring the killers to justice.
Hopefully David Kato’s legacy will live on and be remembered as man who championed the rights of all.
Guest post by Josh Mead.
26/01/2011
Iraq Inquiry: Freedom of Information lives!
How empowered we are by the release of the transcripts from the Iraq enquiry:
Transparency and disclosure in action! But wait! I shouldn't mock! We can see from the punctuation that at least one exchange involved a question!
You see it? You noticed? The question mark? Thrilling! The people know all!
BBW readers are invited to submit suggestions as to what these knights might have been saying in the comments...
By Alex Deane
Recent Comments