Poole panned

Great news out of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal which has just found against Poole Council in the Paton case.

This was that business where the local Council used the full extent of anti-terrorist legislation in The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) to spy on a woman who wante to get her child into a decent Primary School.

According to Liberty,

Today the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) ruled unlawful Poole Borough
Council’s surveillance of mum-of-three Jenny Paton and her family.
The Council had subjected the whole family, including the children, to surveillance
for three weeks in 2008. It claimed that it was acting under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), in order to discover whether the family lived
within the catchment area where the children went to school. But the IPT ruled
that was not a proper purpose and nor was it necessary to use the surveillance
powers. Today’s landmark ruling is the first time these intrusive powers –
controversially granted to local authorities under RIPA – have been challenged
at an open hearing before the IPT.

All good stuff. Now how many other councils have been misusing these powers?

Twitter madness

The Paul Chambers case is uttterly ridiculous.

To think that somebody can get a criminal record and £1000 fine for venting their frustration is bonkers. That the police and the CPS thought it was worth wasting taxpayers money on the case was even worse.

As Mr Chambers put it just now on his twitter feed,

"I'd like to thank the CPS for their level-best efforts in fucking up the life of an ordinary citizen. I love Britain"

If I said here and now that the people in the CPS who were responsible for this travesty and destruction of freedom of speech should be rounded up, and rolled in broken glass, because I an frustrated by the idiocy and waste they have displayed and caused, would I put myself in risk of arrest?

It seems so. (Awaits in trepidation)

Jack Wilkes that you were with us now.

Scared yet

Ian Parker-Joseph has a story which if true is frankly terrifying. I have spoken to him and he swears blind that he has not made this up.

In a stunning conversation with a friend, who is a serving member of the Armed Forces, over the weekend, it was revealed that transfers to regiments and other units in the UK on home duties are being undertaken by the MOD based upon whether an individual was prepared to 'open fire' on UK citizens during civil disturbances.

Add that to noises off from Richard North over at EU Referendum,

Recently, from a confidential source, I received information that the MoD was buying up unusually large quantities of tear gas and other riot equipment. Clearly, it has no intention of being caught out, as it was at the beginning of the Troubles, having to ration tear gas and riot shields. Maybe they might even find a use for all those Snatch Land Rovers, when they are returned from Iraq.

And factor in this little item from a couple of years ago

CROWD CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
(An appraisal of technologies for political control)

A study commissioned by the EU and I start to feel a little green around the gills.

One option included in this project's task brief is that CCTV cameras could be used throughout European cities to provide a chill effect to dissuade potential rioters from creating civil disturbances.
Algorithmic face recognition systems linked into these networks could then be used to track down and target malefactors. The problem with this option is that it does not enable any real time intervention to further contain trouble as it is breaking out. Experience in those countries which already have mass city centre surveillance, such as the UK, is that they adopt both CCTV and public order tactics and technologies, not either or. Troublemakers have learnt to mask their face and operate outside of the cameras reach. The other danger here is of course in creating a network of mass supervision which may be used for very different purposes to those for which it was originally intended. To effectively deploy these systems would mean putting the whole of society under continuous surveillance which would be assuming a continuing benign level of political stability which rarely exist in the long term, not even in Europe.

Gulp

No, no, no

Just what is it about our governing class that makes them think that their actions are in any way acceptable to normal people?

The latest example of quite how awful they are is in today's Times. They are demanding that one shows one's passport before buying a mobile.

No doubt part of the 'war on terror', yet again we see a further infringment of our liberty. Criminals and terrorists will nick them.

If I hear the arguement 'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear' again I will personally ram the nearest mobile handset down the gaping maw of the offender.

The only bright aspect about this is that the government will probably be out of office before this proposal hits the statute books. Sadly though, I cannot believe that the Tories will be much different.

In the end the only tool available to us will be revolt.

What are they scared of?

It seems that the health fanatics are not satisfied with controlling the media and the public sector. When it comes to the fight against recalcitrant smokers they will resort to any means necessary. This is a press release I received this morning. And no, you will not read it in your daily paper.

Hackers Target Freedom Organisations
The websites of two prominent pro choice organisations campaigning against smoking bans were yesterday targeted by hackers in a "pharming" incident that redirected traffic to the NHS Smokefree website. The DNS poisoning, a high level and sophisticated hacking technique, affected all UK based internet service providers.

Andy Davis, Vice Chairman of Freedom to Choose, one of the affected websites, says: "It appears that Freedom To Choose has annoyed someone high up, it seems they don't want the truth to get out."

Stephanie Stahl, President of Forces International, claims: "To re-direct our UK visitors to an anti-smoking website shows that the antismoking movement must be very nervous about the information our pro-freedom groups provide.

Domain names are sacred on the free-spirited information super highway; we trust that those responsible for this serious violation will be identified and held accountable. "

Both groups campaign against government interference in private life and property, maintaining that blanket smoking bans are based on fraudulent scientific claims about passive smoking. According to Andy Davis: "5 out of 6 studies show second hand smoke to be entirely harmless. In the UK the ban is needlessly devastating the hospitality and entertainment industries, yet modern air filtration can remove 9.97% of airborne particles and make indoor air cleaner than outdoor, regardless of smoking."

The hacking incident has been reported to the relevant authorities and is under investigation.

Of course this could be the work of a concerned citizen. But are you sure?

Get out of my bedroom

Sometimes a proposal comes along to prove how far removed the types in the Commission really are from reality. Today's example comes in the form of a draft regulation on Population Housing Censuses.

One of the questions that they would like to see included in any future national census is the following,

"Date(s) of the beginning of the consensual union(s) of women having ever been in consensual union: (i) first consensual union and (ii) current consensual union"

This is mind boggling in the extreme. Historically census questions are a rich source of trouble. In 2001 at least a million people refused to answer the census, and famously of those who did answer the then new religious affiliation question, more than 300,000 answered Jedi Knight, making Jedi the fourth largest religion in the UK.

Other questions include such useful information as,

- Durable consumer goods possessed by the household
- Availability of car parking
- Telephone and internet connection
- Own-account agricultural production (household level)(Those tomatoes on the balcony?)
- Separation of waste in the household

Plus all the normal questions involving number of rooms, who you work for, formal or informal work, ethnicity, what country you come from, education etc. etc. etc.

So what this will mean if passed in Committee is that in future the EU will instruct national authorities what question they must ask (and in the case of these questions those that would like the national statistics bodies to ask) in order that they can set policy with greater accuracy.
But this means that they will have the right to demand, on pain of a significant fine to wander into your house, check on your possessions, take a stroll around your garden and then the final indignity look between the sheets to count the stains.

Worse still is the thought that with modern marketing and database software, either private business, political parties or scariest still the Government may well be able to pinpoint individuals with unerring accuracy. Tie this to a national ID database and I start to go a little grey.

It is odd though that the consensual union question only refers to women. Which given that there is a sexual orientation question as well, means that they can narrow down how sexually active straight and gay women are, but not men. This is, I am told because, women are more likely to be stable, whereas men flit from bedroom to bedroom, thereby providing duff statistics.
However, if this idea sees the light of day I have a small suggestion. Either claim that you are a virgin or maybe claim over a 1000 unions. I would love to see them untangle that. And after all we know that God is an Englishman and everybody on the continent knows we don't have a sex life, so a few million virgin births shouldn't trouble anybody overmuch.

Update
The BBC has reported this here,

UKIP MEP Derek Clark said he was "appalled that the EU thinks it has the right to ask women such deeply personal questions and I defy anybody to give me a reason as to what use the answers will be".

He said the proposed census questions were "the work of a group of MEPs who must spend their private time peering over their neighbours' fences".

"I'd be incredible interested to know how a green-fingered couple in possession of a wide screen TV who sleep together will help housing planning, but I've no doubt the EU will come up with some lunatic reason how it does."

Mr Clark added: "This report is both crackers and deeply offensive.

"When will politicians realise that George Orwell's 1984 was a warning, not an instruction manual?"

Kiddieprinting continues

I must congratulate Greg Mullholland the Leeds Lib/Dem MP for his sucess in forcing an adjournment debate last night on the thorny issue of the mass fingerprinting of schoolchildren, done largely without parental consent.

Of course the response he got from the schools minister Jim Knight was pitiful. Though interestingly the long delayed advice from the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA) on the subject of Biometrics in Schools just happened to be launched on the same day. I wonder how that co-incidence happened.

Be that as it may the minister's comment,
"It is important to clarify exactly what we mean by biometric data. The biometric element in this case, as the hon. Gentleman said, is an algorithmic representation of a fingerprint—not the recording of a fingerprint",
just has to go down as one of the more fatuous statements about technology I have heard for a long time. Think about it, you are not reading letters now at all, you are looking at a vuisual representation of letters created by alogrithmic representation. He really must think we are stupid.

Anyhow Mullholland was able to remind people of the almost dictatorial powers of schools in this (and other regards). The Education Ministry - and yes I refuse to call it by its unbelievably trite new name (The Department for Children, Schools and Families)

“has issued no guidance to schools on the collection and recording of pupils’ biometric information. In collecting data of this type the school is likely to rely on the broad powers contained in paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 of the Education Act 2002. This enables a governing body to do anything which appears to them to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of, or in
connection with the conduct of the school.”—[ Official Report, 27
February 2006; Vol. 443, c. 504W.]. My emphasis

Take a look at the difference between the advice given yesterday by our Government,

"5.2 Pupil and parent consent
A question which is often asked is whether schools can legally collect biometric data without a pupil’s or their parents’ consent. There is nothing explicit in the Data Protection Act to require schools to seek the consent of parents before implementing a biometric technology system. The Data Protection Act 1998 provides that personal data shall not be processed unless one of the conditions of processing detailed in Schedule 2 of the Act is met. Consent is one of these, but it is not required if any of the other conditions applies.
Regarding the age of a child, pupils are the data subjects of the personal data which is being collected and it is they who should in the first instance be informed about the use of their personal data. The Data Protection Act 1998 does not specify when a person is (or may be considered to be) too young to give consent. It is a matter of judgement that must be made on a case by case basis by the school as the data controller. Only where a pupil is judged to be unable to understand what is involved will his or her rights be exercisable by the parent or someone with parental responsibility for the pupil.
Whilst consent is not required for all processing of personal data, schools should normally involve pupils and parents in their decisions to use biometric technologies as is the case with other decisions made during the school life of children".

and the advice given by the Irish Information Commissioner,

"Consent: In the context of students attending a place of education, the Data Protection Commissioner would stipulate that the obtaining of consent is of paramount importance when consideration is being given to the introduction of a biometric system. It is the Commissioner’s view that when dealing with personal data relating to minors, the standards of fairness in the obtaining and use of data, required by the Data Protection Acts, are much more onerous than when dealing with adults. Section 2A(1)(a) of the Data Protection Acts states that personal data shall not be processed by a data controller unless the data subject has given his/her consent to the processing, or if the data subject by reason of his/her physical or mental incapacity or age, is or is likely to be unable to appreciate the nature and effect of such consent, it is given by a parent or guardian etc. While the Data Protection Acts are not specific on what age a subject will be able to consent on their own behalf, it would be prudent to interpret the Acts in accordance with the Constitution. As a matter of Constitutional and family law a parent has rights and duties in relation to a child. The Commissioner considers that use of a minor’s personal data cannot be legitimate unless accompanied by the clear signed consent of the child and of the child’s parents or guardian.

As a general guide, a student aged eighteen or older should give consent themselves. A student aged from twelve up to and including seventeen should give consent themselves and, in addition, consent should also be obtained from the student’s parent or guardian. In the case of children under the age of twelve, consent of a parent or guardian will suffice. All students (and/or their parents or guardians as set out above) should, therefore, be given a clear and unambiguous right to opt out of a biometric system without penalty. Furthermore, provision must be made for the withdrawal of consent which had previously been given.

Now which government do you trust to safeguard civil liberties?