Home Office guides plods on photography • The Register

From “The Register” today:

“Terror Laws due to be passed this autumn, could provide Police with a new and significant power to stop individuals taking photographs.

This follows reassurances from Home secretary Jacqui Smith that there is “no legal restriction on taking photographs in public places”, which is why she will shortly be issuing police with updated guidelines on … how to enforce legal restrictions on photography.

Our Jacqui hasn’t completely taken leave of her senses. The real question is whether this particular bit of bureaucratic madness represents an official lightening of the stance on photography – or a tightening up.

To begin with, some restrictions do exist – most notably the Official Secrets’ Act 1911, which makes it an offence to take photographs of certain prohibited places (like dockyards and power stations). However, it seems unlikely that she has instructed the National Police Improvements Agency (NPIA) to carry out such a far-reaching exercise just to remind local coppers of their duty to keep an eye open for spooks.

Over the last couple of years, there has been increasing pressure on the humble photographer. First the public suspected them of being paedophiles, then covert terrorists …

… more worrying is s.75 of the Counter-Terrorism Bill, even now tracking its weary way through the Lords. This makes it an offence to “elicit or attempt to elicit information about” members of the armed forces, intelligence services, or policemen, where this information could be of use to a terrorist.

Names? Addresses? Photographs? Since almost every other item of anti-Terror law has eventually been broadened out beyond its original scope, there must be some concern that once in place, these new powers will be used to make life uncomfortable for anyone wishing to photograph police at demonstrations. Or just police anywhere?

After all, if you are out demonstrating, you probably have a political axe to grind, and as far as New Labour are concerned, the dividing line between political activism and involvement in Terror is increasingly fuzzy.“

The emphasis on this last point is mine. Under Tony Blair’s dictatorship the freedoms of all civilians were constantly eroded until life generally began to resemble the graphic novel (and, less successfully, the movie) “V for Vendetta“. Under the foreign Prime Minister Gordon Brown this continues apace, with office flunkey wacky Jacqui Brown aiding and abetting. Photographers are just one of the many subsections of society that are constantly being sniped at, up to the stage where the Government is trying to brainwash the public that if a person is taking photos, they must be either a terrorist or a paedophile.

Labour Dictator Gordon Brown

And bizarrely, it’s only people using cameras that are picked on by the Police. Try taking a picture of something with a camera phone and you won’t encounter a problem. I carry a 5-megapixel Fuji for snapshots, which I imagine would fare quite badly if compared to Sony Ericsson’s latest 8mp camera phone.

Let’s look at it another way. You’re a terrorist, taking covert pictures of (say) the Houses of Parliament or the London Underground for use in your dastardly schemes. Do you:

• A) Set up a camera and a tripod; spend 15 minutes messing about with different lenses, shutter speeds, apertures, ISO settings, graded filters, light meters, white balances, exposure times; move the tripod ten times to make sure you have the light striking the building at the right angle; apologise to the forty of fifty people whose way you getting in because you walk around without paying attention to the people around you, before finally taking one single, perfect picture;
• B) Take your camera phone out of your pocket and rattle off ten decent quality pictures in thirty seconds without breaking your stride, whilst people around you thinking you’re reading a text message?

Kudos to The Register for following these stories and trying to bring them to a wider audience. In their usual style, the BBC will probably cover this story in three days in their usual watered down, pandering to Labour style.

Read the full story: Home Office guides plods on photography • The Register

Bookmark and share on Facebook, MySpace, Delicious and more

“Menezes officer changed evidence”, reports BBC

I’ve had one or two “discussions” with people about the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes. I have two central points of contention:

• There is no ‘acceptable level’ of innocent people being killed by our own security forces in the supposed “War on Terror”
• There would be no “War on Terror” if the UK was not engaged in an illegal war on foreign soil

It’s difficult for me to articulate myself properly on this first point, because it gets me rather heated. I reject entirely the notion that we should accept casualties of innocent people as collateral damage, in order to save the greater number of people. There is no reason for our own supposed ’security’ forces to make mistakes that result in innocent people being killed, as has happened in the case of Jean Charles de Menezes.Try a simple thought experiment: which of your family would you accept being killed if it kept the rest of them alive? How many of your Facebook friends would you sacrifice to keep the rest of them intact? How do you justify such a decision to yourself?

As the BBC story that prompted this blog entry (BBC NEWS | UK | Menezes officer changed evidence) shows, the security operation that resulted in Mr. de Menezes being shot could not have been handled any worse if it had been run by primary school children. As the inquest has heard today, a Special Branch officer deleted a line from computer notes which quoted Deputy Assistant Commissioner Cressida Dick. The deleted line said that Mr. de Menezes should be allowed to run onto the tube as he was not carrying anything. He made this change of his own volition; it was not requested by management. He amended his notes after initially handing his evidence in,  which does naturally make one wonder what they are trying to cover up.

Of course, none of this would have happened if Tony Blair had not been so desperate to Follow George Bush into their illegal war (it’s amazing how easy it is to ignore the United Nations when they say something other than what you want them to hear, isn’t it? ) The case for war is diffcult to make convincingly, especially as many of the charges levelled at Saddam Hussein – using chemical and biological weapons, for example – are all sins committed by the USA long before Saddam Hussein (and let’s not forget the only nation on Earth to use nuclear weapons. If you want to see the legacy of the American decision to use chemical weapons on the peopl of Vietnam, then you should check out the work of photojournalist Michael Carroll at http://www.carrollphoto.org/:

Third generation victims of Agent Orange in Cambodia

Tattoo gay people with health warning, bigot priest writes

“Let us make it obligatory for homosexuals to have their backsides tattooed with the slogan SODOMY CAN SERIOUSLY DAMAGE YOUR HEALTH and their chins with FELLATIO KILLS. In addition the obscene “gay pride” parades and carnivals should be banned for they give rise to passive corruption, comparable to passive smoking.”

Bigot - a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

The words of Reverend Peter Mullen, vicar of St. Michael’s Cornill in London, chaplain to the stock exchange, and homophobic bishop. He posted these outrageoues, homophobic words on his personal blog and, as you can expect, he was forced to take them down again in a hurry by the diocese. By the wonders of Google and it’s caching system, you can still read his original words by clicking here – but hurry, the cache won’t be there forever. In fact, that’s a good point – let’s reproduce some more of this bigot’s words:

“… We disapprove of homosexuality because it is clearly unnatural, a perversion and corruption of natural instincts and affections, and because it is a cause of fatal disease. The AIDS pandemic was originally caused by promiscuous homosexual behaviour. Such promiscuity is itself an evil because its perpetrators merely use others indiscriminately for their own gratification, treating their fellows as sex objects and as means to an end rather than as ends in themselves …

It is time that religious believers began to recommend specific utilitarian discouragements of homosexual practices after the style of warnings on cigarette packets: Let us make it obligatory for homosexuals to have their backsides tattooed with the slogan SODOMY CAN SERIOUSLY DAMAGE YOUR HEALTH and their chins with FELLATIO KILLS. In addition the obscene “gay pride” parades and carnivals should be banned for they give rise to passive corruption, comparable to passive smoking. Young people forced to witness these excrescences are corrupted by them.

Let me continue the comparison with smoking which is banned in most public places. Those committing homosexual acts in public places – such behaviour being a crime in any case under the Homosexual Reform Act of 1967 – should be arrested, tried and punished. Parks, open spaces and public lavatories would at once become more wholesome places. There ought to be teaching films shown in sex education classes in all our schools. These would portray acts of sodomy and the soundtrack would reinforce the message that it is a filthy practice ending with the admonition: “We do, after all, know the importance of washing our hands after going to the lavatory.”

I’m sorry, I didn’t say that it made for pleasant reading – quite the opposite. I just didn’t want this to be brushed uner the carpet – as many people as possible should know about this hateful man’s words and thoughts. But then, I suppose in talking about “acts of sodomy” and “filthy practices” we are at least forced to acknowledge that the Anglican Church is an expert in the field:

Canada strikes deal on church abuse:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2497199.stm

Anglican church strips priest over sexual abuse:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/27/2347959.htm

“God wants you to love me”:
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/5475.htm

Perhaps the Reverend would do well to remember some of the words of the Good Book:

Hebrews 13:18: Pray for us, for we are sure that we have a clear conscience, desiring to act honorably in all things.

Colossians 3:5-10: Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. On account of these the wrath of God is coming. In these you too once walked, when you were living in them. But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth. Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices

Ephesians 5:5: For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.

Galatians 5:19-21: For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.

There’s a clip from one of my favourite ever TV shows, which better elucidates my feelings:

Bookmark and share on Facebook, MySpace, Delicious and more

BT’s third Phorm trial starts tomorrow • The Register

Story from The Register early today:

“BT will invite thousands of its broadband subscribers to voluntarily participate in a third trial of Phorm’s advertising targeting system starting tomorrow, the two firms said this morning.”

Finally, the second coming of Satan himself will be unveiled. Phorm and BT’s third attempt to persuade the UK that it’s good to talk have spyware on your PC will be rolled out to 10,000 helpless victims, or “customers” as the company condescendingly refers to them.

In case you’re a little hazy on your recent history, the facts in the matter are these. BT and Phorm illegally intercepted the web traffic of over 100,000 UK internet users. The intention was to collect data from the browsing habits of these customers to sell targetted advertising. This contravenes the 2000 RIPA Act, but that hasn’t stopped the UK Government and the City of London Police turning a blind eye; after all, it’s not like they’re big into snooping into people’s private lives or shooting innocent civilians in the head.

If you’re wondering what the big deal is, think of it like this: imagine the Royal Mail opening all your letters (both the ones you send and recieve), photocopying them and making a note of anything interesting and then selling the details to advertisers.

Remember, BT customers don’t get anything out of this: it’s no safer, despite BT’s protestations; customers don’t make any money out of it; and they don’t get a rebate on their (extortionately expensive) BT services. This illegal act only serves to make more profit for a company that made £2.5 billion in profits last year. That’s the bottom line.

If you want more background to this story, click on the Phormwatch link on the right side of the page.

For the full story, visit:

BT’s third Phorm trial starts tomorrow • The Register.

And here’s the BBC’s usual sanitised, half-assed attempt at covering the story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7641754.stm

Bookmark and share on Facebook, MySpace, Delicious and more

London Police give green light to crime

In a surprise (and yet not wholly unexpected) move, the City of London Police have given the green light to anyone wishing to commit a crime and not be charged, especially if they happen to be a large plc.

Both The Register and The BBC are reporting that the City of London Police have decided not to investigate web 2.0 criminal masterminds BT and Phorm for illegally intercepting internet communications of hundreds of thousands of BT customers.

For those who are new to the saga, BT and Phorm have enjoyed a lengthy relationship together. They covertly intercepted the web traffic of BT customers to examine what sites they were visiting, what content they were looking at, etc. This data was intended to be shared with Phorm in order to produce targetted internet advertising. Therefore, when you use the shared family PC and you start seeing adverts for “24/7 same-sex dominatrix in fishing waders” and “Divorce Lawyers 4 U” you can be sure that other members of your family are into some pretty wierd shit. Unless it was you looking for all that stuff, of course. If it helps, imagine the Post Office opening all your letters, copying the interesting stuff, and then flogging the details to advertising companies. It’s exactly the same principle.

This type of thing contravenes the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) 2000 and is clearly a criminal offence. There isn’t even any sort of discussion to be had about it, it’s as black and white as a Charlie Chaplin film.

Following hot on the heels of the UK Government (who – let’s face it – aren’t really interested in preserving anyone’s privacy) the City of London Police have also decided there is no case to answer. The clueless coppers issued a statement running thus:

“The matter is considered a civil dispute, and your desire to elicit clarity around the wording of the relevant acts would necessitate senior Counsel involvement and it is thought this would be inappropriate for Police to use public funds to pursue civil issues where there is no suggestion that Criminal Intent exists.”

So, in other words, the pathetic plods assume that you all want to have your internet communications intercepted and the results sent to an advertising company. Well, of course you do – what right-minded person doesn’t want to give up all right of privacy? Duh!

The UK’s hope now rests – bizarrely – with the EU. They have demanded to know why the UK government isn’t investigating this more fully. Hopefully they can take the UK government to task over this.

If you want to know more about the invasion of privacy that BT and Phorm are inflicting upon you (and if not, why not?)  click on the Phormwatch link on the right side if the page, or click here for the full Phorm Files at The Register.

Bookmark and share on Facebook, MySpace, Delicious and more

Met Office: Global warming goes on

I’m always amazed when people (crank organisations like the UK and USA governments, MacDonald’s, and The Flat Earth Society) deny the existence of global warming.

The Met Office were today compelled to issue a strongly worded statement in defence of Global Warming:

Global warming anomaly

The statement begins:

“Anyone who thinks global warming has stopped has their head in the sand. The evidence is clear – the long-term trend in global temperatures is rising, and humans are largely responsible for this rise. Global warming does not mean that each year will be warmer than the last, natural phenomena will mean that some years will be much warmer and others cooler. You only need to look at 1998 to see a record-breaking warm year caused by a very strong El Niño. In the last couple of years, the underlying warming is partially masked caused by a strong La Niña. Despite this, 11 of the last 13 years are the warmest ever recorded.”

For the rest of the statement, mosey on over to the Met Office website:

Met Office: Global warming goes on

* PS The Flat Earth Society – who frankly I would rather see in charge of a country than either Gordon Brown or George Bush – also don’t believe in global warming. Their statement about global warming on their FAQ page doesn’t even make sense, but feel free to stop by and laugh at it here.

Gordon Brown celebrates detention limit victory

Editor’s Note: This is a reposting from the Ad Fundum archives

Prime Minister Gordon Brown is finally celebrating a victory today, his first since coming to power almost a year ago and after a seemingly endless string of recent defeats.

Prime Minister Adam Susan leaving today’s press conference

Last night, the act to approve a 42-day detention period for those people suspected of posing a risk to security was passed, by a tiny margin – just 9 votes separated the two sides.

The terms of the act are extremely loose, allowing a flexible interpretation of the phrase “posing a risk to national security”. In the interests of national security, Ad Fundum are happy to help out the beleaguered Prime Minister by providing a definition of acts that could be construed as ‘posing a risk to national security‘:

• lost a laptop containing sensitive information
• left security documents on a train
• misplaced a CD containing personal information of thousands of people
• trusted a courier with a parcel containing both an encrypted CD and the password to unencrypt it
• paid their nanny to act as a security adviser
• paid their children to be campaign strategists
• spent £19k on a new Swedish sauna and jacuzzi and passed it off on expenses as ‘bathroom scales’
• used a foreign company to process UK data even though they’d already lost data on previous occasions
• passed the buck whilst the newly empowered ’security’ forces murder an innocent person with several shots through the head
• allowed American agencies to use the UK as a staging post for their extraordinary rendition flights
• tried to prosecute obviously innocent Asians as terrorists simply because of the colour of their skin
• illegally removed the population of the island of Diego Garcia in order to allow the Americans to use it as a military base
• participated in not one but two illegal wars on foreign soil
• ignored the rulings of the United Nations when the UN’s pronouncements don’t match their own agenda
• widened the gap between the rich and the poor
• accepted cash in return for doling out meaningless honourary titles and peerages
• refused to lessen the tax burden on fuel, despite the tax burden contributing more than half of the overall cost of fuel
• presided over the infringement of numerous civil liberties
• backed a scheme for ID cards despite the project going hopelessly over budget and having no benefits related to security or any other
• allowed the economy to go into recession
• concentrated only on the south of England when large parts of the country were flooded
• refused to prosecute or even speak out against a major telecommunications company who illegally intercepted and scanned the browsing habits of hundreds of thousands of internet users
• refused to prosecute or even speak out against a major telecommunications company for lying repeatedly about the fact that they had illegally intercepted and scanned the browsing habits of hundreds of thousands of internet users

Bookmark and share on Facebook, MySpace, Delicious and more