3 Comments August 24th, 2008 by ThunderDragon
Civil liberties are, it seems, a dying breed in modern Britain. No longer is an Englishman’s - or anyone elses - home their castle. Now we are under surveillance by the state even when we are in our home:
The sex lives of council-tax payers are being secretly monitored by local authority inspectors to establish whether residents claiming single person’s discounts are really living alone.
Undercover snoopers are being used to find out how often lovers visit and whether supposedly single residents are sharing a bed every night with the same person…
Local authorities have adopted the techniques after the government urged them to carry out “spot checks” on properties where a single-person council-tax discount is claimed. Councils are also demanding that householders give access to their bedrooms in return for the single-person discount. (The Times)
A large state means a surveillance state. The more they provide, the more spies they have to employ in order to check up on us, to ensure that we are doing things as they say we ought.
The British way of life used to rest on the principles of liberty and freedom. There was no way that the government could justify spying on the people as a matter of course. The right to privacy was inviolable.
But in the years since the Second World War, that has all changed. We now have CCTV that watches us every day, and a government and councils that requires more and more personal information from us. And now they want to check our bedrooms for underwear.
This is, unfortunately, only a few steps away from 1984 and the telescreen.*
*Please note that this means that I believe that New Labour is setting an unfortunate precedent, not that their intention is turn the UK into Airstrip One.
Add a comment July 17th, 2008 by ThunderDragon
No decision has yet taken by the government as to whether they will create a huge database containing a record of our phone calls, emails, and internet use.
The Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, said that it could be a “step too far for the British way of life”, and then asked the question:
Do we really want the police, security services and other organs of the state to have access to more and more aspects of our private lives?
The answer to this is, of course, no fucking way.
The government already has a whole load of databases containing our personal information, and haven’t exactly shown themselves to be all that good at protecting it.
Why do they need any record of our private communications? They are private for a reason - because they are bugger all to do with the government, or anyone else for that matter. Rather than literally bugging every single one of us, why can’t they just accept that it simply is none of their business and leave us alone?
What they already have is a step too far for the true British way of life. This database would just send it tipping right over - just like ID cardswould.
The government dosen’t need more databases and they already know more about us than they need to. What we the people need is fewer intrusions into our lives by the Big Brother state.
2 Comments June 11th, 2008 by ThunderDragon
11th June 2008 will be remembered. As the day when our elected representatives decided to remove our freedoms.
As strong as it may sound, our freedoms have died today. Because now we can be held for 42 days without charge if “terrorism” is mentioned as a reason. And we get £42,000 compensation if then released without charge. Scant compensation for such a breach of our human rights.
There is no case for 42 days. There has been no demand for it from the security services - and even if there had been, that doesn’t mean that we should give it to them. If other countries - including the US - believe that a third or less of that time is necessary, why are we going so far? What possible need is there?
ConservativeHome has never been more wrong than when it supported this bill.
Yet MPs voted by 315 to 306 for the motion. It was very tight, as expected, and showed that most Labour - and DUP - MPs chose to vote for the government and against the people.
Every MP who voted for the motion
should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. For they have, as Tony Benn put it [probably the first and last time I will ever agree with him] repealed the Magna Carta.
UPDATE: As A Dodo has the Magna Carta’s obituary.
2 Comments March 18th, 2008 by ThunderDragon
ASBOs have failed. Rather than deterrents, they have become badges of honour among young thugs. So what is the government’s response? To roll them out over young potentials as well:
Tearaways as young as 10 are to be targeted with “baby Asbos” to stop them going off the rails.
Ed Balls, the Children’s Secretary, will tomorrow announce a £218 million expansion of Family Intervention Projects - a scheme which tackles potential troublemakers by signing them up to good behaviour contracts.
The orders will be issued to about 1,000 of the country’s worst-behaved children. Failure to stick to the contract could lead to a criminal record.
Police could issue a “baby Asbo” following a complaint from a teacher that a child was skipping lessons or concerns from a neighbour about poor parental behaviour. (The Telegraph)
So they just haven’t learnt from their mistakes, have they? Handing out “baby ASBOs” to even younger children - especially those who haven’t even done anything very bad at all.
The name of the scheme that is to to deal with this just sums up Labour’s entire style of government: Family Intervention Projects. Why do they feel that they have the right to intervene in out lives?
When this comes alongside the proposal to put young children who “exhibit behaviour indicating they may become criminals in later life” on the DNA database. I mean, WTF? Since when has being a behaving badly ever been a good enough reason for your DNA to be added to their Big Brother database?
Have we finally abandoned the idea of innocent until proven guilty? Do you no longer actually have to commit a crime before you can be convicted for it?
Baby ASBOs and adding disruptive children’s details to the DNA database will not prevent them feom becoming criminals, but the opposite - pushing them in to a life of crime, since that seems to be what is expected of them!
Add a comment March 8th, 2008 by ThunderDragon
No to ID cards. No matter what step-by-step approach is taken. If it is to be “consumer demand” that drives take up of ID cards, then make then completely voluntary, with no compulsion involved in any way at all. otherwise it really isn’t “consumer demand” but government imposition.
Especially since the Home Secretary really doesn’t seem to get the real issue. It’s not about having a physical ID card or the same information on a passport - but the government having our information at all. They seem to have no comprehension it is this database culture that is the largest issue. Having to carry an ID card is part of it, but not all that much in comparison.
And what is scariest is the inability of government to protect our data. Not just this government, but the entire institution of government. This government is specific, though, since Jacqui Smith doesn’t seem to get the idea of data privacy, defending her database because it “won’t be on the internet”. Yes, she really said that, forgetting that data privacy exists anyway. And since it will presumably be on the government intranet, it is obviously be open to good and persistent enough hackers.
Add a comment February 26th, 2008 by ThunderDragon
1 Comment February 6th, 2008 by ThunderDragon
Polls show growing opposition to ID cards:
25% of the public are deeply opposed to the idea… [but] British public opinion is deeply split over the introduction of identity cards, with 50% against the idea and 47% in favour. [However, a] majority - 52% - say they feel uncomfortable with allowing “personal information that is provided to one government department to be shared between all government departments that provide public services”. (The Guardian)
Add a comment February 5th, 2008 by ThunderDragon
Why is there such a furore over the bugging of Sadiq Khan [Labour MP for Tooting]? He wasn’t being bugged, but the person he was visiting. That he is an MP should make absolutely no difference.
MPs should be exempt from bugging personally because they are MPs, but bugging shouldn’t have to be restricted with regards to other people around them. MPs are just citizens who happen to be allowed to site of the House of Commons for a while by kind permission of the electorate. Maybe this is something they forget?
It shouldn’t be allowed to bug MPs just because they are MPs, but if there is any national security reason to suspect an MP or anyone else of a breach of national security, just the mere fact that they are an MP or come into contact with an MP should be no reason not to bug them.
MPs should have no extra rights to the rest of us. There should be a good reason before any of us are bugged, and that applies to MPs as well. But should a good reason rise, bugging should take place, regardless of whether they are or not an elected Member of Parliament.
Whatever the reason behind this bugging, whether it was made by the police without consulting ministers and whether or not the officer who did the bugging was pressurised into it makes no difference at all. Sadiq Khan MP was not being bugged; the person he visited in jail was. He just happened to be there.
On another note, MPs exist to be bugged. Just by their constituents, rather than the police…
Add a comment October 22nd, 2007 by ThunderDragon
Is there to be an end to anonymous online comments?
Disgruntled fans of Sheffield Wednesday who vented their dissatisfaction with the football club’s bigwigs in anonymous internet postings may face expensive libel claims after the chairman, chief executive and five directors won a high-court ruling last week forcing the owner of a website to reveal their identity.
The case, featuring the website owlstalk.co.uk, is the second within days to highlight the danger of assuming that the apparent cloak of anonymity gives users of internet forums and chatrooms carte blanche to say whatever they like…Exposing the identity of those who post damaging lies in cyberspace is a growth area for libel lawyers. (The Guardian)
It is unlikely that this will really make much difference. The ways in which to hide and protect your identity online are legion, and this sort of story will just increase them. It will never be possible to identify who’s who online, as every level of detection will be countered by several layers dedicated to preserving anonyminity.
What this does show, however, is that it is very much becoming less easy - or at least more troublesome - to be and remain anonymous online. Many bloggers write under pseudonyms, like I do - even though my real name is openly shown on this page, and easily findable by anyone who can be bothered - but this won’t really make my difference to that. Certainly until they bring in thought crimes, anyway.
via A. Tory
Source: The Guardian
2 Comments September 20th, 2007 by ThunderDragon
Well it shocked me, anyway. The Lib Dems have said something that is actually right, and that I can agree fully with. It’s also actually a liberal proposal! I have to say I’m amazed.
The UK is in danger of becoming a “surveillance society ruled by the technology and the politics of fear”, the Liberal Democrats have warned.
Home affairs spokesman Nick Clegg said the government saw “no limits” to the use of technology for spying on people.
The party’s annual conference in Brighton voted to repeal the ID Cards Act and for the destruction of DNA samples taken from “innocent” people.
It also called for “appropriate regulation” of CCTV cameras. (BBC)
Yes, he’s right. But of course this isn’t exactly something that they have just discovered and revealed to us all. We already knew it. But at least they’ve caught up - eventually. Maybe they’ll come round to the idea of reducing the stranglehold of the welfare state we’re in… Well, stranger things have happened, haven’t they? OK, maybe not. But still, at least they’ve got this far!
UPDATE: I’ve just realised something very strange - today [and in the last two posts] I have agreed with both the Lib Dems and Labour - to some extent at least. There must be something wrong with me…
Source: BBC
