BREAKING: Discover How A Slacker Makes $100,000 A Year!

WEBMASTERS! Get Your Website To The Top Of Google

UK Army doctors in Baha Mousa case ‘colluded in cover-up’

Sunday, July 22nd, 2007

Doctors who examined Baha Mousa, a 24-year-old Basra hotel worker who was kicked and beaten to death in British custody in 2003, have been reported to the General Medical Council.

The move follows allegations that army doctors who treated the detainees colluded in a cover-up by misdiagnosing and failing to properly document the extent of prisoners’ injuries. Doctors who examined Baha Mousa said in legal evidence that they saw no injuries on his body, except “a little dried blood” around his nostril.

However, a post-mortem found that Mr Mousa had 93 injuries. Photographs of his corpse show clearly his face, chest and upper body covered with contusions and bruising.

The details of Mr Mousa’s injuries and his medical inspections are outlined in a 383-point dossier submitted to the Ministry of Defence by Phil Shiner of Public Interest Lawyers, who is acting on behalf of the former detainees.

The dossier will increase the pressure for the Ministry of Defence to hold a full public inquiry into the abuse and torture of Iraqi civilian prisoners in Basra by UK troops. Mr Shiner has listed every example of inconsistency in evidence or allegation of abuse to come out of the courts martial – which jailed one soldier and acquitted six others – into the 2003 beatings.

The former detainees, all civilians with no links to insurgency groups, are now launching a civil action against the MoD, claiming they were hooded, beaten, subjected to sleep deprivation and noise, and held in stress positions during their detention.

Further developments last week saw one of England’s most senior judges order the release of evidence used during the courts martial, which the MoD had been withholding from Mr Shiner.

Mr Justice Andrews ruled that the Defence Secretary, Des Browne, must delay deciding what kind of inquiry should be held into the torture allegations until Mr Shiner has received the documents and had an opportunity to comment.

Mr Shiner’s dossier includes suggestions that the doctors responsible for the detainees in Basra colluded in the cover-up following the death of Mr Mousa

When asked at the courts martial whether he noticed any bruising or injuries on Mr Mousa, the army’s doctor, Captain Derek Keilloh, replied: “When I was attending to him, the only injury which is documented on my statement was there was a small trace of old dried blood around one of his nostrils, and other than that I did not see any other external injuries.”

Dr Keilloh, now a GP in Northallerton, Yorkshire, said yesterday: “What I saw is what I saw. I wasn’t there to conduct a forensic examination on [Mousa]. I passed him to the relevant authorities and a post mortem was carried out. That examiner saw what he saw. I can’t explain any discrepancies.”

Mr Shiner said: “The judge ordered that we should be allowed to see all the relevant documentation. I’ve already made 380-odd points about systematic abuse and systemic failings based only on the transcript of the court martial. Once we are able to understand more fully what went wrong in the light of the missing documents, the need for an inquiry becomes inevitable. I’d expect the Secretary of State to do the right thing and announce the inquiry in early October.

“The systemic failings and terrible abuse it led to will have to be faced. As for the disgraceful behaviour of the medics involved, I’ve now reported that to the General Medical Council.”

Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, said a full public inquiry into the treatment of prisoners in Basra was now “inevitable” and a question of “when, not if”.

A spokesman for the MoD said: “On July 13th, the Secretary of State agreed the relevant court martial documents in our possession that can be released would be given to Public Interest Lawyers. This pre-dates the court’s instructions and demonstrates willingness to cooperate with the PIL.”

Mr Shiner pointed out that this was more than a week after he lodged the application for the documents with the court and the last possible moment before the ruling.

Have Your Say: UK Army doctors in Baha Mousa case ‘colluded in cover-up’
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Toilet-paper dispenser is stingy with the sheets

Sunday, July 22nd, 2007

By Brian Tracey

This may be the last straw for people who think technology has eliminated every last bit of personal privacy: A toilet-paper dispenser that limits the issue of tissues.

A year in the works, the electronic dispenser is being rolled out to the masses by Kimberly-Clark Corp. as it seeks to capture more of the $1 billion away-from-home toilet paper market. The company believes most people will be satisfied with just five sheets — and use 20 percent less toilet paper in the process.

“Most people will take the amount given,” says Richard Thorne, director of the company’s washroom business. Waxing philosophical, he adds, “People generally in life will take what you give them.”

Kimberly-Clark turned to focus groups and years of internal research to determine just how much is right.

Americans typically use twice as much toilet paper as Europeans — as much as an arm’s length each pull, Thorne says. The company decided the best length is about 20 inches — or precisely five standard toilet paper squares, though the $30-$55 machine can also be adjusted to churn out 16 inches or 24 inches, depending on the demand.

When one of the two motion sensors is activated, the device’s battery-powered motor automatically dispenses a predetermined amount of toilet paper.

The machine isn’t completely automated. Each also comes with a suite of “security” features in case the machine malfunctions.

“This is probably the most personal experience you can have. We didn’t want to get any frustrations,” Thorne says. “None of us like to touch things they think someone before them has touched.”

But Thorne admits the company won’t truly achieve a “touchless” bathroom until it develops a toilet that does the dirty work for you.

“And that,” he says, “is going to be interesting.”

Disgusting was more the word we had in mind.

Have Your Say: Toilet-paper dispenser is stingy with the sheets
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Is this Big Brother street?

Sunday, July 22nd, 2007

By James McCarthy

SMILE…you’re on camera. Today we can reveal the incredible rise of CCTV with one Welsh street containing a staggering 73 spy cams in less than half-a-mile.

Wales on Sunday’s count on Cardiff’s St Mary Street and High Street, which runs as one 800m road, equates to one every 11m.

But private and public cameras were most prolific in Swansea’s 240m-long Wind Street Swansea, where we spotted 34 – or one every seven metres.

Newport’s 320m High Street had 20, one every 16 metres, while Llandudno’s Mostyn Street had just 10 over a 1,200m stretch, or one every 120 metres.

In the capital, Cardiff Council defended the figure in one of the city’s main thoroughfares, busy with shoppers and workers by day and heaving with partygoers by night.

A spokesman said: “The cameras in St Mary Street are used to monitor traffic but also the police use them to monitor crime and disorder.

“If there are any accidents, information can be put out to tell people to avoid the area. They’re quite useful.”

And South Wales Police’s Inspector Tony Bishop said: “They are one of the most effective tools to tackle crime because they provide crime prevention, crime detection, and evidence gathering for the courts.”

Barely a pace can be walked down any high street in the country without hundreds of images of shoppers being gathered by public and private organisations.

Spies in the sky sit atop lampposts, adorn walls and peer from doorways at passers by. They snap speeding drivers and motorists running red lights.

So common are they that hardly anyone notices the long eye of the lens in our towns and cities anymore.

There is no official record of camera numbers as shop owners do not need planning permission to put up CCTV.

The result is thousands of cameras watching our every move – Britain is the most heavily observed country in the world.

The latest studies show there are 4.2 million surveillance cameras in the UK, or one for every 14 people.

Whether they make us safer is debatable.

Mark Dziecielewski, of civil liberties group Watching Them Watching Us, said: “Politicians like cameras because they are seen to be doing something.

“But just like you see birds perched on scarecrows, the hoodies and dealers come back once the novelty has worn off.

“Having so many cameras in one place actually makes police investigations harder because they have to divert so much manpower into checking footage from every single camera.”

A spokesman for AXA insurance said CCTV did not necessarily reduce business premiums, adding: “They are usually installed for the peace of mind of the owners.

“Insurers are more interested in the physical security – shutters, grilles and an alarm connected to the police station.”

But doubts over their effectiveness has not deterred businesses from snapping up cameras, which are much cheaper than they once were.

Smart Protection Systems’ Daniel Botterill said: “The quality of the standard cameras was always pretty good, but people were put off by the video recording equipment.

“To get a good picture you would have to change the tape every three hours. Digital technology changed all that. A typical machine will now record continuously for three months.

“It used to cost thousands and has only become affordable for ordinary shops in the last five years.”

The Walkabout chain – which has pubs in Cardiff, Newport and Swansea – has CCTV watching drinkers at every bar.

A spokesman said: “All Walkabout venues have security cameras that record inside and outside the venues 24 hours a day, every day.

“We have them in place to ensure that all of our customers have a safe and fun Walkabout experience.”

Have Your Say: Is this Big Brother street?
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

No 10 honours plot: four new names

Sunday, July 22nd, 2007

By David Leppard and Robert Winnett

POLICE investigating the cash for honours scandal seized evidence that Downing Street had plotted to hand peerages to eight of the 12 businessmen who had bankrolled Labour’s 2005 election campaign.

A draft honours list, drawn up in September 2005, showed that the plan to offer peerages to businessmen who had loaned Labour millions of pounds had involved twice as many lenders as previously disclosed.

Scotland Yard discovered that every Labour lender who was eligible for a seat in the House of Lords was initially nominated in lists compiled for Tony Blair by his top aides.

Sir Christopher Evans, the biotechnology entrepreneur, Rod Aldridge, former executive chairman of Capita, Derek Tul-lett, the broker, and Andrew Rosenfeld, chairman of Minerva, were all on an internal Downing Street peerages list. Until now the names of only four lenders – Sir David Garrard, Barry Towns-ley, Chai Patel and Sir Gulam Noon – were known to have been put forward.

The Sunday Times has also discovered that there was a second key piece of evidence – a diary kept by Evans that allegedly details a series of meetings at the House of Lords in 2004 with Lord Levy, Blair’s chief fundraiser, to discuss a peerage.

One well-placed Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) source said the diary was “dynamite” and provided “spectacular” evidence of an alleged “agreement” for Evans to be ennobled in return for a £1m loan.

Evans’s name was removed from the honours list after Downing Street discovered that his company was the subject of an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office.

A CPS official said that these two pieces of evidence formed the core of the 16-month police investigation, which the Yard believed until recently would lead to charges against key Downing Street aides.

However, the investigation was effectively halted at a meeting on July 4 when a leading government barrister, David Perry QC, ruled that the diary was not admissible as evidence.

Perry also said the police must have evidence of an “unambiguous agreement” showing that the financial backers gave money only on the explicit understanding that they would be honoured in return. The CPS announced last week it would not be charging anyone.

The decision followed a criminal investigation that led to the arrest of Levy and Ruth Turner, Blair’s director of government relations. Blair himself was questioned three times by police.

Government insiders revealed that the police were shocked at the decision not to prosecute. An official said the police and the CPS had worked side by side on the case for 18 months until there was a “sudden change that pulled the plug”.

The official said: “All those eight people gave massive loans, then shortly after they all appeared on No 10’s peerages list. It looked pretty odd, to say the least. Were the Met right to investigate it? Yes, they f****** were.”

Assistant Commissioner John Yates, who led the investigation, is expected to be called this Thursday before the Metropolitan Police Authority, which is reviewing the inquiry. He may be asked to disclose evidence which had led his team and CPS advisers to be so confident.

This is understood to include details of at least three drafts of the working peerage list drawn up by Downing Street aides in September 2005.

Police obtained the document last summer after which Yates told MPs he had uncovered “significant and valuable” evidence not yet in the public domain.

The document revealed that eight people were on an internal peerage list. This was hinted at in the CPS’s formal-document explaining its decision on Friday. It is understood police obtained information on how Levy was involved in supporting names who were to be on the list.

Drafts of the list were then compiled by Turner, John McTernan and Jonathan Pow-ell, Tony Blair’s chief of staff. Detectives also studied e-mails sent during its compilation which referred to the potential nominees’ loans to the party.

The other four who loaned Labour money were ineligible for peerages as they live abroad or had already been ennobled.

Government sources revealed Evans’s diaries were central to the investigation. The Sunday Times has established that there are entries apparently recording discussions between Evans and Levy in 2004. In these meetings, the diaries allegedly explicitly link the offer of a loan to the promise of a peerage. Levy told police he had never made any such offer.

“If those diaries ever get into the public domain, the effect will be spectacular,” said one person who has read them.

Evans’s spokesman said yesterday no such discussion had taken place, adding: “The CPS judgment was crystal clear – there was no evidence of wrongdoing and the CPS explained that in some detail. That is the end of the story.”

Evans himself attacked Labour for abandoning him during the inquiry. Asked if the party had been supportive, he told a Sunday newspaper: “The short answer is no,” adding that some in the party considered him and the others “dispensable pawns”.

Sarah Helm, Powell’s wife, described the early morning police raid on Turner during the investigation as “Gestapo tactics. Pick on the vulnerable, preferably a single woman living alone”.

Additional reporting: Holly Watt

Have Your Say: No 10 honours plot: four new names
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

CIA to ‘toughen up’

Sunday, July 22nd, 2007

NY Times

THE White House has given the Central Intelligence Agency approval to resume some severe interrogation methods for questioning terrorism suspects in secret prisons overseas.

Administration officials said the CIA could now proceed with an interrogation program that has been in limbo since the Supreme Court ruled last year that all prisoners be treated in accordance with Geneva Convention prohibitions against humiliating and degrading treatment.

A new order signed by President George Bush on Friday would allow some techniques more severe than those that govern interrogations by military personnel in places like the Guantanamo Bay detention centre.

Have Your Say: CIA to ‘toughen up’
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Microchip Implants Raise Privacy Concern

Sunday, July 22nd, 2007

By TODD LEWAN

CityWatcher.com, a provider of surveillance equipment, attracted little notice itself - until a year ago, when two of its employees had glass-encapsulated microchips with miniature antennas embedded in their forearms.

The “chipping” of two workers with RFIDs - radio frequency identification tags as long as two grains of rice, as thick as a toothpick - was merely a way of restricting access to vaults that held sensitive data and images for police departments, a layer of security beyond key cards and clearance codes, the company said.

“To protect high-end secure data, you use more sophisticated techniques,” Sean Darks, chief executive of the Cincinnati-based company, said. He compared chip implants to retina scans or fingerprinting. “There’s a reader outside the door; you walk up to the reader, put your arm under it, and it opens the door.”

Innocuous? Maybe.

But the news that Americans had, for the first time, been injected with electronic identifiers to perform their jobs fired up a debate over the proliferation of ever-more-precise tracking technologies and their ability to erode privacy in the digital age.

To some, the microchip was a wondrous invention - a high-tech helper that could increase security at nuclear plants and military bases, help authorities identify wandering Alzheimer’s patients, allow consumers to buy their groceries, literally, with the wave of a chipped hand.

To others, the notion of tagging people was Orwellian, a departure from centuries of history and tradition in which people had the right to go and do as they pleased, without being tracked, unless they were harming someone else.

Chipping, these critics said, might start with Alzheimer’s patients or Army Rangers, but would eventually be suggested for convicts, then parolees, then sex offenders, then illegal aliens - until one day, a majority of Americans, falling into one category or another, would find themselves electronically tagged.

The concept of making all things traceable isn’t alien to Americans. Thirty years ago, the first electronic tags were fixed to the ears of cattle, to permit ranchers to track a herd’s reproductive and eating habits. In the 1990s, millions of chips were implanted in livestock, fish, dogs, cats, even racehorses.

Microchips are now fixed to car windshields as toll-paying devices, on “contactless” payment cards (Chase’s “Blink,” or MasterCard’s “PayPass”). They’re embedded in Michelin tires, library books, passports, work uniforms, luggage, and, unbeknownst to many consumers, on a host of individual items, from Hewlett Packard printers to Sanyo TVs, at Wal-Mart and Best Buy.

But CityWatcher.com employees weren’t appliances or pets: They were people made scannable.

“It was scary that a government contractor that specialized in putting surveillance cameras on city streets was the first to incorporate this technology in the workplace,” says Liz McIntyre, co-author of “Spychips: How Major Corporations and Government Plan to Track Your Every Move with RFID.”

Darks, the CityWatcher.com executive, dismissed his critics, noting that he and his employees had volunteered to be chip-injected. Any suggestion that a sinister, Big-Brother-like campaign was afoot, he said, was hogwash.

“You would think that we were going around putting chips in people by force,” he told a reporter, “and that’s not the case at all.”

Yet, within days of the company’s announcement, civil libertarians and Christian conservatives joined to excoriate the microchip’s implantation in people.

RFID, they warned, would soon enable the government to “frisk” citizens electronically - an invisible, undetectable search performed by readers posted at “hotspots” along roadsides and in pedestrian areas. It might even be used to squeal on employees while they worked; time spent at the water cooler, in the bathroom, in a designated smoking area could one day be broadcast, recorded and compiled in off-limits, company databases.

“Ultimately,” says Katherine Albrecht, a privacy advocate who specializes in consumer education and RFID technology, “the fear is that the government or your employer might someday say, ‘Take a chip or starve.’”

Some Christian critics saw the implants as the fulfillment of a biblical prophecy that describes an age of evil in which humans are forced to take the “Mark of the Beast” on their bodies, to buy or sell anything.

Gary Wohlscheid, president of These Last Days Ministries, a Roman Catholic group in Lowell, Mich., put together a Web site that linked the implantable microchips to the apocalyptic prophecy in the book of Revelation.

“The Bible tells us that God’s wrath will come to those who take the Mark of the Beast,” he says. Those who refuse to accept the Satanic chip “will be saved,” Wohlscheid offers in a comforting tone.

—

In post-9/11 America, electronic surveillance comes in myriad forms: in a gas station’s video camera; in a cell phone tucked inside a teen’s back pocket; in a radio tag attached to a supermarket shopping cart; in a Porsche automobile equipped with a LoJack anti-theft device.

“We’re really on the verge of creating a surveillance society in America, where every movement, every action - some would even claim, our very thoughts - will be tracked, monitored, recorded and correlated,” says Barry Steinhardt, director of the Technology and Liberty Program at the American Civil Liberties Union in Washington, D.C.

RFID, in Steinhardt’s opinion, “could play a pivotal role in creating that surveillance society.”

In design, the tag is simple: A medical-grade glass capsule holds a silicon computer chip, a copper antenna and a “capacitor” that transmits data stored on the chip when prompted by an electromagnetic reader.

Implantations are quick, relatively simple procedures. After a local anesthetic is administered, a large-gauge hypodermic needle injects the chip under the skin on the back of the arm, midway between the elbow and the shoulder.

“It feels just like getting a vaccine - a bit of pressure, no specific pain,” says John Halamka, an emergency physician at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

He got chipped two years ago, “so that if I was ever in an accident, and arrived unconscious or incoherent at an emergency ward, doctors could identify me and access my medical history quickly.” (A chipped person’s medical profile can be continuously updated, since the information is stored on a database accessed via the Internet.)

Halamka thinks of his microchip as another technology with practical value, like his BlackBerry. But it’s also clear, he says, that there are consequences to having an implanted identifier.

“My friends have commented to me that I’m ‘marked’ for life, that I’ve lost my anonymity. And to be honest, I think they’re right.”

Indeed, as microchip proponents and detractors readily agree, Americans’ mistrust of microchips and technologies like RFID runs deep. Many wonder:

Do the current chips have global positioning transceivers that would allow the government to pinpoint a person’s exact location, 24-7? (No; the technology doesn’t yet exist.)

But could a tech-savvy stalker rig scanners to video cameras and film somebody each time they entered or left the house? (Quite easily, though not cheaply. Currently, readers cost $300 and up.)

How about thieves? Could they make their own readers, aim them at unsuspecting individuals, and surreptitiously pluck people’s IDs out of their arms? (Yes. There’s even a name for it - “spoofing.”)

What’s the average lifespan of a microchip? (About 10-15 years.) What if you get tired of it before then - can it be easily, painlessly removed? (Short answer: No.)

Presently, Steinhardt and other privacy advocates view the tagging of identity documents - passports, drivers licenses and the like - as a more pressing threat to Americans’ privacy than the chipping of people. Equipping hospitals, doctors’ offices, police stations and government agencies with readers will be costly, training staff will take time, and, he says, “people are going to be too squeamish about having an RFID chip inserted into their arms, or wherever.”

But that wasn’t the case in March 2004, when the Baja Beach Club in Barcelona, Spain - a nightclub catering to the body-aware, under-25 crowd - began holding “Implant Nights.”

In a white lab coat, with hypodermic in latex-gloved hand, a company chipper wandered through the throng of the clubbers and clubbettes, anesthetizing the arms of consenting party goers, then injecting them with microchips.

The payoff?

Injectees would thereafter be able to breeze past bouncers and entrance lines, magically open doors to VIP lounges, and pay for drinks without cash or credit cards. The ID number on the VIP chip was linked to the user’s financial accounts and stored in the club’s computers.

After being chipped himself, club owner Conrad K. Chase declared that chip implants were hardly a big deal to his patrons, since “almost everybody has piercings, tattoos or silicone.”

VIP chipping soon spread to the Baja Beach Club in Rotterdam, Holland, the Bar Soba in Edinburgh, Scotland, and the Amika nightclub in Miami Beach, Fla.

That same year, Mexico’s attorney general, Rafael Macedo, made an announcement that thrilled chip proponents and chilled privacy advocates: He and 18 members of his staff had been microchipped as a way to limit access to a sensitive records room, whose door unlocked when a “portal reader” scanned the chips.

But did this make Mexican security airtight?

Hardly, says Jonathan Westhues, an independent security researcher in Cambridge, Mass. He concocted an “emulator,” a hand-held device that cloned the implantable microchip electronically. With a team of computer-security experts, he demonstrated - on television - how easy it was to snag data off a chip.

Explains Adam Stubblefield, a Johns Hopkins researcher who joined the team: “You pass within a foot of a chipped person, copy the chip’s code, then with a push of the button, replay the same ID number to any reader. You essentially assume the person’s identity.”

The company that makes implantable microchips for humans, VeriChip Corp. (CHIP), of Delray Beach, Fla., concedes the point - even as it markets its radio tag and its portal scanner as imperatives for high-security buildings, such as nuclear power plants.

“To grab information from radio frequency products with a scanning device is not hard to do,” Scott Silverman, the company’s chief executive, says. However, “the chip itself only contains a unique, 16-digit identification number. The relevant information is stored on a database.”

Even so, he insists, it’s harder to clone a VeriChip than it would be to steal someone’s key card and use it to enter secure areas.

VeriChip Corp., whose parent company has been selling radio tags for animals for more than a decade, has sold 7,000 microchips worldwide, of which about 2,000 have been implanted in humans. More than one-tenth of those have been in the U.S., generating “nominal revenues,” the company acknowledged in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing in February.

Although in five years VeriChip Corp. has yet to turn a profit, it has been investing heavily - up to $2 million a quarter - to create new markets.

The company’s present push: tagging of “high-risk” patients - diabetics and people with heart conditions or Alzheimer’s disease.

In an emergency, hospital staff could wave a reader over a patient’s arm, get an ID number, and then, via the Internet, enter a company database and pull up the person’s identity and medical history.

To doctors, a “starter kit” - complete with 10 hypodermic syringes, 10 VeriChips and a reader - costs $1,400. To patients, a microchip implant means a $200, out-of-pocket expense to their physician. Presently, chip implants aren’t covered by insurance companies, Medicare or Medicaid.

For almost two years, the company has been offering hospitals free scanners, but acceptance has been limited. According to the company’s most recent SEC quarterly filing, 515 hospitals have pledged to take part in the VeriMed network, yet only 100 have actually been equipped and trained to use the system.

Some wonder why they should abandon noninvasive tags such as MedicAlert, a low-tech bracelet that warns paramedics if patients have serious allergies or a chronic medical condition.

“Having these things under your skin instead of in your back pocket - it’s just not clear to me why it’s worth the inconvenience,” says Westhues.

Silverman responds that an implanted chip is “guaranteed to be with you. It’s not a medical arm bracelet that you can take off if you don’t like the way it looks…”

In fact, microchips can be removed from the body - but it’s not like removing a splinter.

The capsules can migrate around the body or bury themselves deep in the arm. When that happens, a sensor X-ray and monitors are needed to locate the chip, and a plastic surgeon must cut away scar tissue that forms around the chip.

The relative permanence is a big reason why Marc Rotenberg, of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, is suspicious about the motives of the company, which charges an annual fee to keep clients’ records.

The company charges $20 a year for customers to keep a “one-pager” on its database - a record of blood type, allergies, medications, driver’s license data and living-will directives. For $80 a year, it will keep an individual’s full medical history.

—

In recent times, there have been rumors on Wall Street, and elsewhere, of the potential uses for RFID in humans: the chipping of U.S. soldiers, of inmates, or of migrant workers, to name a few.

To date, none of this has happened.

But a large-scale chipping plan that was proposed illustrates the stakes, pro and con.

In mid-May, a protest outside the Alzheimer’s Community Care Center in West Palm Beach, Fla., drew attention to a two-year study in which 200 Alzheimer’s patients, along with their caregivers, were to receive chip implants. Parents, children and elderly people decried the plan, with signs and placards.

“Chipping People Is Wrong” and “People Are Not Pets,” the signs read. And: “Stop VeriChip.”

Ironically, the media attention sent VeriChip’s stock soaring 27 percent in one day.

“VeriChip offers technology that is absolutely bursting with potential,” wrote blogger Gary E. Sattler, of the AOL site Bloggingstocks, even as he recognized privacy concerns.

Albrecht, the RFID critic who organized the demonstration, raises similar concerns on her AntiChips.com Web site.

“Is it appropriate to use the most vulnerable members of society for invasive medical research? Should the company be allowed to implant microchips into people whose mental impairments mean they cannot give fully informed consent?”

Mary Barnes, the care center’s chief executive, counters that both the patients and their legal guardians must consent to the implants before receiving them. And the chips, she says, could be invaluable in identifying lost patients - for instance, if a hurricane strikes Florida.

That, of course, assumes that the Internet would be accessible in a killer storm. VeriChip Corp. acknowledged in an SEC filing that its “database may not function properly” in such circumstances.

As the polemic heats up, legislators are increasingly being drawn into the fray. Two states, Wisconsin and North Dakota, recently passed laws prohibiting the forced implantation of microchips in humans. Others - Ohio, Oklahoma, Colorado and Florida - are studying similar legislation.

In May, Oklahoma legislators were debating a bill that would have authorized microchip implants in people imprisoned for violent crimes. Many felt it would be a good way to monitor felons once released from prison.

But other lawmakers raised concerns. Rep. John Wright worried, “Apparently, we’re going to permanently put the mark on these people.”

Rep. Ed Cannaday found the forced microchipping of inmates “invasive … We are going down that slippery slope.”

In the end, lawmakers sent the bill back to committee for more work.

Have Your Say: Microchip Implants Raise Privacy Concern
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

UN probes Ivory Coast abuse

Sunday, July 22nd, 2007

The United Nations is investigating allegations of widespread sexual abuse by hundreds of its peacekeepers serving in the Ivory Coast.

A Moroccan battalion of 800 troops in Bouake, in the north of the country, were confined to their barracks on Friday and all of the contingent’s activities suspended.

The UN said an internal investigation “revealed serious allegations of widespread sexual exploitation and abuse” by the unit which is serving in Bouake.

The soldiers are alleged to have had sex with a large number of underage girls.

Announcing the battalion’s suspension, Hamadoun Toure, a spokesman for the UN mission in Ivory Coast, said: “It means they don’t participate in our operations.”

“Those who are found guilty will be sent back home,” he said.

The Ivory Coast mission numbers just over 9,000 uniformed personnel from more than 40 countries. Moroccans make up the bulk of the force in Bouake, with some Bangladesh police, Pakistani engineers and Ghanaian medical personnel.

The peacekeepers, backed by troops from France, the country’s former colonial ruler, are in Ivory Coast to support a peace agreement between Laurent Gbagbo, the Ivorian president, and Guillaume Soro, a resistance leader.

Sexual violations

In recent years, the UN has been struck by a string of allegations of sexual violations by its forces around the world.

UN officials have said that more than 300 members of UN peacekeeping missions around the world have been investigated for sexual exploitation and abuse over the past three years, including in Cambodia and Haiti.

The body’s operations in the Democratic Republic of Congo have also seen a number of allegations recently, despite a “zero-tolerance” policy.

A 2005 UN report said soldiers should be punished for any sexual abuse, their pay docked and a fund set up to assist any women and girls they impregnated. But member nations have not agreed to this.

Agencies

Have Your Say: UN probes Ivory Coast abuse
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Related News

This entry was posted on Sunday, July 22nd, 2007 at 3:56 pm and is filed under War & Terrorism News . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Translate: