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

WEBMASTERS! Get Your Website To The Top Of Google

Council Rejects ID Card Scheme

Friday, May 29th, 2009

Have Your Say: Council Rejects ID Card Scheme
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Watchdog wants police to limit CCTV demand on pubs

Thursday, May 28th, 2009

Tough new government guidelines are to be demanded to stop police making unfair requests to pubs and clubs around the use of CCTV.

Privacy watchdog The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is to make the plea in response to the government’s plans for a mandatory code of practice for the industry.

The ICO fears police are using licensing conditions to make pubs install CCTV or identity scanners, which can provide information on their drinkers.

Under the new mandatory code of practice consulation, the government avoided plans to make CCTV a blanket condition for all pubs, but councils will be able to force outlets in trouble-spots to operate surveillance if it feels it is needed.

Deputy information commissioner David Smith said strict new rules to reign in police demands were still required and urged clarity in the code.

 

“What we are worried about is that businesses are being forced into gathering information for police and the law enforcement agencies,” he said.

“The question is whether we are going too far and is this surveillance at a level that is unacceptable that doesn’t justify the benefits. Pubs and clubs should not become information gathering sources for police.”

Smith said the ICO wanted some “very clear guidance” on how far police can go. “We wonder how many landlords have simply gone along with police demands when there weren’t any proper grounds to do so,” he added.

An ICO spokeswoman later said: “There needs to an absolute reason why CCTV or ID scanners need to be in place. We understand that CCTV can serve an important purpose, but we don’t want licensees to feel they have to have CCTV to have a licence.”

Earlier this year, Islington licensee Nick Gibson won a battle with police not to have CCTV at his newly-opening pub on the basis it would interfere with his customer’s civil liberties.

The public consultation on the code of practice close on August 5.

Have Your Say: Watchdog wants police to limit CCTV demand on pubs
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Google Street View causes another stir

Thursday, May 28th, 2009

The roving eye of Google’s Street View camera has been out and about in Cheltenham, UK.

Residents spotted the van in the area this week, capturing images for the website’s extensive mapping programme.

The site features photographs of every street in towns which have been “mapped” by Google’s mysterious-looking cars with blacked-out windows.

People living in St Mark’s had mixed views on whether or not they were in favour of their homes, gardens – and even themselves – being caught on camera.

Jess Cave, who lives in Spenser Road, gave it the thumbs up.
She said: “I think it’s only a bit of fun so I don’t really mind. I don’t feel like I’m being spied on and I’m not bothered by it.

“I’m sure I’ll be checking it out when it goes online.”

Student Cindie Taylor, who is looking to move into the area, said it would help her to look at houses.

She said: “I love it and I’ll be checking it out when they put it up on the web.

“I’ll be able to see what places are like when I’m looking for somewhere to live.”

Pensioner Margaret Slack was also in favour. She said: “I’m not bothered at all by it. I’ve got nothing to hide so why not.”
However Cheralyn Rendall, who lives in Shakespeare Road, said: “It’s an invasion of privacy. It just seems pointless. I can’t really understand the reason behind it.

“I’ve got young kids and I wouldn’t want them to be looked at on the internet through this.”

Lucie Bennett, who also lives in Spenser Road, said: “If my daughter was out playing in the garden and it caught her on camera I wouldn’t like that.

“I think they should tell people beforehand what they’re going to do rather than just turn up when they choose.”

Pensioner Michael Poppleton said: “It’s an invasion of privacy and if they caught me on camera I’d be asking them to remove it.”
Beverley Fennel, who lives just off Shakespeare Road, agreed.

She said: “I’m not against CCTV for people’s safety but this seems like too much of an invasion of privacy.

“It’s not going to really benefit anyone, so what’s the point? People have a right to do what they want in their homes and gardens without a camera coming past and taking a picture.”

The system allows people to search for 360-degree pictures of “virtual” streets.

It’s not yet known when the coverage will be complete and available to view online.

Residents concerned over privacy can ask for their faces to be blurred out, via the Street View website.

Have Your Say: Google Street View causes another stir
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Who’s Watching You?

Thursday, May 28th, 2009

Last Monday the BBC broadcast the first in a new three-part series called ‘Who’s Watching You?’ UK readers can view the show (until next Monday) by using the BBC’s iPlayer facility.

In his BBC blog, series producer Mike Rudd says: “Cheaper and more advanced technology has prompted a massive expansion in surveillance – not just through CCTV, listening devices, tracking, but also through all the personal data that’s collected on every one of us.

“As the Information Commissioner Richard Thomas says, we leave an “electronic footprint” behind us almost wherever we go – with every click of the mouse, every phone call, every time we use a credit card. And that information just grows and grows, allowing a more and more detailed and intrusive picture to be constructed of how we each live our lives.

“The paradox is that there is a great deal of support for things like CCTV. We all benefit from better crime detection and from easier and cheaper services. But we know surprisingly little about the depth and breadth of modern surveillance, or about the potential problems when things go wrong.”
A lot to offer
The show is an ‘authored’ piece, with presenter Richard Bilton offering his views and opinions on the issues raised – which included council misuse of RIPA powers, ANPR use by police, data loss, and more.

And because it’s an authored investigation, it employs ever-present, irritating, faux-degraded imitations of CCTV footage, and annoying, constantly moving, constantly zooming and re-focusing cameras. We get it, Mike, ok? It’s about CCTV. Relax.

But despite these stylistic reservations, I think programmes such as this one have a lot to teach the security industry about the actual concerns of the public. Investigations into the ‘surveillance state’ are often dismissed by the industry as alarmist and ill-informed, but the very fact that programmes such as this one are being made – to express the concerns of a sizable proportion of the public – mean the image of the surveillance industry could do with some improving.

If the security industry is to be effective in preventing crime, terror and other incidents, and in investigating and prosecuting those that do take place, it needs the trust of the public behind it.
Confusing messages
As Bilton himself said on Monday, the British public sends out confusing messages about surveillance. “We embrace it, and want more, not less,” he said. And we allow cameras deeper into our private lives than authorities would (currently) dare go.

But there is a constant concern about the potential for a ‘police state’. And that is amplified when cameras and surveillance methods become intrusive.

This can be simply an irritation. But there’s potential for it to be much worse, unless it is regulated and controlled effectively.

We’re always told “if you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to worry about.” Which is fine if you know where you stand. But what if the goalposts shift? What if – perish the thought – a government which you don’t agree with, with different notions of what ‘nothing to hide’ might mean – comes to power?
Protected from protectors
There needs to be a system in place to ensure surveillance – and more specifically, surveillance databases – cannot be used against the people they are meant to protect.

Like it or not, the security industry has a responsibility to ensure that the use of its equipment and technologies are safeguarded through effective and stringent privacy and data protection legislation and enforceable standards.

And for its own good – for our own good – it needs to be seen to be advocating privacy, care with databases, and individual rights. It’s not only good PR, it’s for the greater good.

At the close of the first episode, Bilton says he seen no evidence so far to support ‘Big Brother’ theories. But, he says: “I think the march of surveillance is pretty much unstoppable. And if that’s the case, I think we need more protection, better regulations, and stronger safeguards.”

Have Your Say: Who’s Watching You?
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Lost Military Disks Had Personal Information

Monday, May 25th, 2009

LONDON - AN INTERNAL military memo published on Monday confirmed that computer disks lost at a British Royal Air Force base contained sensitive files on the private lives of senior officers, including answers to vetting questions about drug abuse, extramarital affairs and the use of prostitutes.
The memo was released to Britain’s The Guardian newspaper under freedom of information laws following the loss of data disks in September.

At the time of the theft from RAF Innsworth, about 113 miles west of London, Britain’s defense ministry said only that personal data such as bank details and addresses could have been lost.

But the memo confirms that the data included details of security vetting, potentially involving information on criminal convictions, debts, medical conditions and sexual activity.

‘This data provides an excellent target list for foreign intelligence services, investigative journalists and blackmailers,’ the memo stated.

Britain’s defense ministry declined Monday to confirm the details of the lost data, but said there is no evidence it is in the hands of criminals or enemy forces.

‘All individuals identified as being at risk received personal one-on-one interviews to alert them to the loss of data, to discuss potential threats and to provide them with advice on mitigating action,’ a ministry spokeswoman said, on condition of anonymity in line with policy. — AP

Have Your Say: Lost Military Disks Had Personal Information
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Victims Families: 7/7 investigation a “whitewash”

Monday, May 25th, 2009

Families of victims of the July 7, 2005 bombings in London have denounced a parliamentary investigation into the events as a “whitewash”. They accuse Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), which issued a report of its investigation last week, of covering up the failure of MI5 to stop the four suicide-bombers who killed 52 people and injured 700.

Sean Cassidy whose son Ciaran died on the London underground, said, “This is a complete whitewash. We now need a public inquiry. It is the only thing that will answer all the questions. It has to be independent. We are four years on and there are still no answers.”

Robert Webb, whose sister Laura died, said, “The ISC report seemed to give the benefit of the doubt to MI5 in a way the Hutton Report or the Butler Inquiry did to MI6 over Iraq… I feel I owe it to Laura to get some answers… We need a fair independent inquiry that asks robust questions of MI5 and the police into why decisions were made and looks at wider questions of why these men did what they did.”

Rachel North, who survived the July 7 bombings, accused MI5 of using “weasel words” over what they knew, adding, “It does look a lot like MI5 ran rings around the MPs” who sit on the ISC.

In the aftermath of the July 7 bombings, then Home Secretary Charles Clarke said the attacks came “out of the blue” and the four bombers—Mohammad Siddique Khan, Shehzad Tanweer, Germaine Lindsay and Hasib Hussain—were “clean skins” with no known links to terrorism. Ministers and senior security officials insisted there was no warning of an imminent attack.

The ISC report confirms that, in reality, there was a wealth of information about the bombers, particularly Khan. “As we have delved deeper,” it declares, “we have uncovered new information that even the organisations involved had not connected together.” In relation to Khan the report reveals:

* He was cautioned by West Yorkshire Police for assault in 1993, a police record created and his photograph taken.

* In 2001, several months before the September 11 bombings in New York, Khan was one of 40 men filmed by West Yorkshire Police surveillance officers at a suspected terrorist training camp in Yorkshire, although he remained unidentified.

* In late March 2003, MI5 received intelligence that Mohammed Quayam Khan, from Luton, was the leader of an “Al-Qaida facilitation network”, which provided financial and logistical support to the organisation. MI5 launched an investigation called Operation Crevice, about which it informed the ISC.

* In April 2003, Siddique Khan was seen driving a car carrying an extremist suspect connected to another investigation.

* In July 2003, Quayam Khan’s mobile phone was found to contain the number of Siddique Khan’s phone, which was registered to an Islamist bookshop in Leeds.

* In January 2004, MI5 received intelligence that another individual in the network, Omar Khyam, was involved in an active bomb plot. Khyam became MI5’s “top priority” and Operation Crevice developed into “the largest operation they had ever run”. Khyam was under “consistent” surveillance and everyone he met and spoke to was “assessed”.

* On February 2, 2004, Khan met Khyam near Crawley and was followed and photographed on his way back to Leeds.

* On February 20, 2004, the same day that 600 kilograms of fertiliser was discovered in a warehouse, electronics expert Mohammed Momin Khawaja arrived from Canada to give advice to the Crevice group on remote detonation devices. The following day Khan attended a “farewell” meal with the group and Khawaja.

* On three occasions between February 28 and March 23, 2004 Khan drove to Crawley to meet Khyam and was heard talking about financial fraud, the “success of the Madrid bombings” and returning to “jihad” in Pakistan. Despite being followed home again on one occasion to Leeds, Khan still remained unidentified and classified as a “desirable” target for MI5 investigation (Khyam was classified as “essential”). MI5 told the ISC that they could easily have identified Khan, but did not because he was considered a “small-time fraudster” who had “minor contact” with the Crevice plotters.

* At the end of March 2004, Khyam and seven others in the Crevice group were arrested on suspicion of involvement in the fertiliser plot, tried and found guilty in April 2007.

* In May 2004, a detainee revealed that a man named “Ibrahim” had travelled to Pakistan in 2003 and met the future Crevice group members there.

* In June-July 2004, ten “extremely sensitive” emails are exchanged between West Yorkshire Police and MI5 about Khan and other Crevice contacts in the Leeds area. One of the emails was nine pages long and contained Khan’s 1993 photograph.

* On July 14, 2004, a check on the Police National Computer showed that there had been 21 enquiries about Khan’s car since August 2003.

* On February 9, 2005, Khan’s car was put on the Automatic Number Plate Recognition system so that CCTV cameras around the country could track it.

* On April 12, 2005, following confirmation from another source that “Ibrahim” had been in Pakistan, MI5 launched Operation DO*** (the full name is redacted in the ISC report) to identify him. It was not until after the 7/7 bombings that Ibrahim was discovered to be Khan. Recent evidence suggests a fifth man was involved and remains at large.

Faced with these facts, the MPs on the ISC had no option but to express their astonishment. Their report declares, “even though Siddique/Sidique/Sadique Khan was not assessed to be significant it is nevertheless surprising, given the amount of information MI5 and the police had on him, that they said they had not identified Mohammed Siddique Khan prior to 7/7.”

However, the report concludes, “We cannot criticise the judgments made by MI5 and the police based on the information that they had and their priorities at the time.”

Throughout its 102 pages, the report strives to excuse the failure of the police and security services to identify the July 7 bombers by referring to “missed opportunities,” only made clear with the benefit of hindsight. It claims the different ways Siddique was spelt hampered the investigation!

The report also claims MI5 was hampered by lack of resources. MI5’s undisclosed budget has tripled since 2001 and the annual bill for all intelligence related activity stands at £2.5 billion a year.

The report brands as “astounding” the revelation that MI5 had been able to investigate only one in 20 terror suspects in 2004 and that 54 “essential” targets were not even being watched. The ISC states, “They had to prioritise even within this essential group. Therefore a “desirable” target did not even get close to attracting a share of the limited resources available.” The ISC report makes the outlandish statement that several hundred thousand MI5 officers would be needed to meet all eventualities, as opposed to the current 3,500.

The report also claims MI5 was overwhelmed by the vast amount of information it had to deal with, citing the tens of thousands of phone calls monitored between January and March 2004, of which 4,020 were connected to Operation Crevice.

Many of the key facts that would give a better assessment of Khan’s importance are redacted in the report on the grounds of national security. These include the number of networks being investigated, the number of people “housed” (followed back to their homes), or numbers travelling to Pakistan to attend terrorist training camps. More extraordinary is the revelation that the record of the targets deemed “essential” and “desirable” in 2004 is “no longer available” following update of MI5’s IT system.

Also redacted from the report are all details about specific warnings that Saudi Arabian intelligence had passed on to British and US intelligence in December 2004 about a terror plot by British-born Muslims, aimed at the London Underground or a nightclub. The ISC says it received no reply for requests for further information made to the Saudi Embassy or the French Embassy about statements made by the then French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy. He said he had been told at the European Union terrorism meeting following the London bombings that some of the suspects were arrested in 2004 and then released in order to break a wider network.

The above facts are sufficient to justify a public inquiry into the UK’s worst mainland terrorist atrocity. The necessity is compounded by the recent not guilty verdict handed down to three men accused of helping to plan the July 7 bombings. After nearly four years and despite a massive police investigation costing some £100 million, they remain the only people to have faced any charges in relation to the London bombings.

Above all, the July 7 terror bombings in London were used to justify an unprecedented offensive against civil liberties, including the adoption of a shoot-to-kill policy by the police that claimed the life of innocent Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes. Only days after the bombings, Prime Minister Tony Blair rejected calls for a public inquiry, insisting that Britain faced a continuing threat. He seized on the bombings to bring in measures to drastically curtail free speech rights and expand the powers of the state to spy on the population. Powers were enacted to hold alleged terrorists and their supporters for long periods without charges, deport immigrants, close down mosques, and cordon off entire parts of major cities. New regional MI5 offices and regional police Counter-Terrorism Units were set up.

It is not possible to determine how much was and is really known about the perpetrators of the terror attacks in London, but a full inquiry is necessary. Such an investigation has to be entirely independent of the British government and probe the underlying causes of the bombings and their foundation in the Blair government’s participation in Washington’s illegal war against Iraq.

Have Your Say: Victims Families: 7/7 investigation a “whitewash”
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

10 Things You Might Not Know About ID Cards

Monday, May 25th, 2009

 

The government issued a little-reported document this month on ID cards. It was quietly published when the home secretary Jacqui Smith announced that some volunteer members of the public in Greater Manchester would be the first to receive ID cards in November.

These are 10 things from the document, “Identity Cards Act Secondary Legislation - An Impact Assessment”, which might not be generally known:

1. The ID Cards Act 2006 imposes on citizens a duty to update information held on them on the National Identity Register (NIR). Cardholders can receive civil penalty fines if they fail to update information held about them on the NIR or notify the Identity and Passport Service if their card is lost or stolen. Citizens may also be in breach of legislation if they fail to notify a change of address within three months. It is open to the government to charge a fee for updating the register.
2. An individual’s entry on the NIR can be given to “government departments or other public sector organisations without the consent of the individual provided they [departments and agencies] have been approved to do so by parliament under secondary legislation”. Secondary legislation does not need any specific parliament approval. The power to enact it has already been given under primary legislation.
3. The Home Office will allow ID cardholders to check the information held on them on the NIR. “Right from the beginning, individuals will be able to obtain a copy of what is held on their record in line with subject access rights under the Data Protection Act.” Much information about individuals will not be on the register itself but brought together from various databases when needed.
4. The NIR will keep a record of which organisations have checked an individual’s record and when, though not the reason or the outcome. The NIR audit trail will show the “specific branch” of a bank which had made a check, for example. The Home Office says this is necessary to “help ensure that inappropriate checks are not made against the NIR”. The NIR audit may be given to HM Revenue & Customs and other government departments “only where it is necessary for the prevention or detection of serious crime”.
5. The NIR will not hold a vast amount of “new kinds of data”, but the document does not explain what this phrase means.
6. Private sector organisations may be given information from the NIR with the individual’s consent. Insurance companies may make a condition of taking out a policy that you give your consent.
7. The ID cards scheme has not been subjected to a formal privacy impact assessment (PIA), as set out by the information commissioner. The PIA would have set out the scheme’s potential privacy issues and risks, as perceived by all stakeholders. The Home Office says that there has been no full PIA because the decision to roll out ID cards “was taken before these developments” - that is the introduction of the PIA. However, the information commissioner says that a PIA can be undertaken after a project has started.
8. 8) The initial £30 fee for an ID card will be reviewed “before the high volume roll-out of identity cards begins in 2012″. The review will take into account the fact that the Identity and Passport Service must cover its costs. The costs of ID cards and passports have been combined so it is possible that fee rises for new and replacement passports will subsidise the cost of ID cards.
9. The document says recent research “shows that 71% of those interviewed trust the Identity and Passport Service to look after their personal information”. This suggests that nearly a third do not trust the government with their ID data or do not know whether to trust it - a sizeable minority.
10. The cost to the public sector and businesses of equipment to read ID cards, integrate systems with the NIR, or obtain information from the register is put at £7bn. The figure is not broken down and, as it is over 30 years, it is unlikely those in the current administration will be in government in 2039 to be accountable for the figure.

Have Your Say: 10 Things You Might Not Know About ID Cards
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Court limits police surveillance powers

Thursday, May 21st, 2009

By Dominic Casciani  |

The Court of Appeal has limited police powers to keep pictures of protesters in case they go on to break the law.

Judges said police had been wrong to retain pictures of a lawful arms trade activist who was not suspected of any criminal offence.

The Metropolitan Police said they acted reasonably in retaining pictures of the campaigner, Andrew Wood from Oxford.

Welcoming the judgement, Mr Wood said that the onus was now on the Met to review its retention policies.

The court has told the Met to destroy the photographs if it does not challenge the ruling in the House of Lords. The force has indicated it will not appeal.

Mr Wood argued that police had harassed him and infringed his right to privacy when he lawfully attended a company’s annual general meeting (AGM) meeting in April 2005.

Reed Elsevier, a global publisher, had become the parent company of an arms fair exhibitions organiser called Spearhead.

Mr Wood and other campaigners bought shares in Reed Elsevier so they could attend the AGM and ask directors to justify this move.

Following the meeting, Mr Wood said Metropolitan Police officers openly photographed, questioned and followed him. Police did not accuse him of breaking the law and he was not arrested.

Mr Wood said the incident had been alarming and the police quickly established he was a law-abiding member of society.

Last year the High Court agreed with the Metropolitan Police that its actions were reasonable because officers need to detect crimes that may have occurred in the past or may do so in the future.

Ruling overturned

But overturning that ruling, Lord Justice Dyson said: “The retention by the police of photographs taken of persons who have not committed an offence, and who are not even suspected of having committed an offence, is always a serious matter.

“The only justification advanced by the police for retaining the photographs for more than a few days after the meeting [attended by Mr Wood] was the possibility that the appellant might attend and commit an offence [at a later arms fair].

“Even if due allowance is made for the margin of operational discretion, that justification does not bear scrutiny …”

Lord Collins of Mapesbury added that the substantial police presence that confronted the arms campaigners had a “chilling effect” on those seeking to protest lawfully. A third dissenting judge said the Met had acted reasonably.

The judgement does not ban specialist police cameramen and photographers, known as Forward Intelligence Teams, but it does say the long-term retention of their pictures must be justified on a case-by-case basis.

Crucially, the ruling echoes a landmark privacy decision against the England and Wales DNA database at the European Court of Human Rights.

That judgement last December said police could not justify keeping forever the DNA profiles of people who were never charged with a crime.

Mr Wood welcomed the judgement saying the police would now have to review its retention policies.

“The police don’t just uphold the law - they must abide by it. They now have a duty to assess the photographs they keep,” he told the BBC.

“If there is no criminal investigation then this ruling surely means they must get rid of the image. I expect them to go through photos and test them against the law. “

Have Your Say: Court limits police surveillance powers
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Privacy: British Government Refuses To Investigate Phorm

Thursday, May 21st, 2009

By Tom Espiner |

The Prime Minister’s Office has rebuffed a public call for a government investigation into Phorm, saying that the independent Information Commissioner’s Office is responsible for ensuring that the behavioural ad-serving technology does not contravene privacy laws.

On Tuesday, Number 10 published a response to an e-petition that had called for an investigation of Phorm’s technology by the government, and a ban on its adoption by internet service providers if it was found to breach European or British privacy laws. Phorm intercepts user data traffic to anonymously profile people and serve them adverts based on their web-browsing behaviour.

In its response, Number 10 said privacy legislation was enforced by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), adding that the ICO “is an independent body, and it would not be appropriate for the government to second-guess [ICO] decisions”.

“ICO has been clear that it will be monitoring closely all progress on this issue, and in particular any future use of Phorm’s technology,” the Prime Minister’s Office stated. “They will ensure that any such future use is done in a lawful, appropriate and transparent manner, and that consumers’ rights are fully protected.”

However, the ICO told ZDNet UK on Tuesday that while it could enforce the Data Protection Act, it had no remit to enforce other privacy laws, such as the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa).

“The [intercept] issues that have been raised around Phorm are not a matter for the ICO,” assistant information commissioner Jonathon Bamford told ZDNet UK. “We have no statutory role in relation to Ripa.”

Various organisations, including the Foundation for Information Policy Research, have asserted that Phorm’s interception of user traffic, prior to anonymising the data, contravenes Ripa.

The regulatory body which oversees Ripa is the Office of Surveillance Commissioners (OSC). However, that office only oversees Ripa in relation to public authorities such as the police and intelligence services, and does not look at possible Ripa contravention by private companies. However, Bamford suggested that regulators such as OSC should monitor the private sector too.

“There’s a gap there,” said Bamford. “No-one performs the same role [as the ICO does with data protection] in relation to Ripa.”

‘Passing the buck’
Jim Killock, director of digital-rights organisation the Open Rights Group, told ZDNet UK that Number 10 was dodging the issue of scrutinising the legality of Phorm. “Clearly, the ICO doesn’t have a role in intercept,” said Killock. “Number 10 is passing the buck to an organisation which doesn’t have that responsibility, which is at best obfuscation.”

Killock added that the legality of Phorm’s service under Ripa should be examined. “You shouldn’t be intercepting data traffic without the clear consent of all users involved,” said Killock. “If you intercept a communication, everyone involved should give clear, informed consent.”

Privacy legal expert Vanessa Barnett, a partner at Berwin Leighton Paisner LLP, told ZDNet UK on Tuesday that “ultimately only a judge can decide” the legality of Phorm’s service.

“Under Ripa, interceptions are lawful if the interceptor has reasonable grounds for believing that consent has been given. That consent must be freely given, specific and informed,” said Barnett. “And that’s the rub: have the individuals been made sufficiently aware of what is being intercepted, and have nonetheless decided it’s OK to be monitored and profiled in this way?”

However, Marc Burgess, senior vice president of technology at Phorm, told ZDNet UK on Tuesday that Phorm’s interception of user traffic, prior to anonymisation, was legal.

“[Phorm] is definitely legal under Ripa,” said Burgess. “Users must give their consent before they can use the service.”

Burgess added that the definition of ‘intercept’ in Ripa means making the contents of a communication available to other people or organisations, but that Phorm’s intercept devices sat on service provider networks and performed filtering before making any data available for scrutiny.

“This information is passing through [sealed] black boxes,” he said. “It’s a filtering and whitelisting process.”

An inquiry into possible regulation of the ISP industry was launched by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Communications (apComms) in April. The government committee is to examine issues including behavioural advertising and deep packet inspection.

Have Your Say: Privacy: British Government Refuses To Investigate Phorm
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Pointless ID Card project has no flicking point

Thursday, May 21st, 2009

By John Oates |

The Home Office has confirmed there is still no timetable for the rollout of ID card readers, without which carrying out effective ID checks is impossible.

So even though the government is continuing to foist the cards on foreigners, airside workers at City of London and Manchester airports and pilots, there is no way to check the cards are genuine. Official advice is to flick the cards with a fingernail because they make a distinctive noise.

Home Office minister Phil Woolas told the House of Commons yesterday that there was no schedule for the distribution of ID card readers to police stations, border entry points, job centres or local authorities.

He said: “In time, card readers will be made available so that the cardholder’s biometric and biographical features can be checked against the card, although a timetable for their introduction has not been established.”

The cards are already being handed to foreign nationals with leave to stay, and the lucky people of Manchester will get the chance to hand over £60 to get their hands on a card from later this year. Wacky Jacqui Smith has previously claimed that people can’t wait for ID cards.

The point of the cards was to provide biometric checks of identity. That information is held on a chip within the card - without a reader there is no way to access this information.

Anyone using the card to identify someone is advised to flick the card to check how it sounds. If they still have concerns there is a phoneline with further advice.

It emerged in February that the government was pushing ahead with issuing cards despite the lack of readers.

Tory leader David Cameron has promised to scrap the scheme if elected. ®

Have Your Say: Pointless ID Card project has no flicking point
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

On British “success” in Iraq

Tuesday, May 19th, 2009

By David Morrison |

“Tony Blair, I’m afraid, would never accept that our foreign policy actually had any impact on radicalization. …That’s clearly rubbish.” (Lord West)

Lieutenant-General John Cooper used to occupy a small office in the vast new US Embassy in Baghdad, as the (British) deputy commander of the Multinational Force Iraq (MNF-I). The US had always accorded Britain this honour, as the second largest contributor to the occupation forces, though very little was seen or heard from successive holders of the office.

However, when Lieutenant-General Cooper retired from his post on 3 March 2009, he used the occasion to justify British military intervention in Iraq. No doubt, his script was supplied by 10 Downing Street.

According to the general, our intervention has been a great success. In an interview with The Guardian on 2 March 2009, he said that “the army will leave Iraq with al-Qaida largely defeated and the roots of democracy firmly planted” [1]. 179 British military personnel have been killed and 315 wounded (and around £6.5 billion spent) to achieve this great success [2].

It would be uncharitable to mention that neither of these objectives was mentioned in the motion passed by the House of Commons on 18 March 2003 supporting military action against Iraq, or in Prime Minister Blair’s speech proposing the motion [3], or in the official document Iraq: Military Campaign Objectives [4] defining our war aims. Nevertheless, according to the general, the deaths of 179 British military personnel and the wounding of 315 others was a price worth paying for this “success” [5], even though it was not the “success” we set out to achieve.

Al-Qaida “greatly reduced”
General Cooper was reluctant to go as far as the US military and say that al-Qaida had been “strategically defeated”, but he did say:

“Al-Qaida had been here in significant numbers and hopefully their aims and objectives have been denied to them. …They have suffered significant reverses and their ability to operate and target civilians has been diminished. Their organisational ability has been greatly reduced.” [1]

Before getting carried away with this “success”, the general should recall that we didn’t invade Iraq in order to suppress al-Qaida – for the very good reason that there was no al-Qaida in Iraq when we invaded. (To be more precise, there was no al-Qaida in the part of Iraq controlled by Saddam Hussein.) So the “success” he boasts about has been to reduce the al-Qaida presence in Iraq to a level somewhat higher than it was before we started.

Al-Qaida boosted globally as predicted
It is particularly absurd to boast that US/UK intervention in Iraq has been “successful” against al-Qaida, when that intervention gave al-Qaida a boost not only in Iraq but globally, as the British intelligence services said, prior to the invasion, it would do.

Most likely, the bombings in London on 7 July 2005 would not have taken place if Britain hadn’t been a party to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Two of the London bombers, Mohammad Sidique Khan [6] and Shehzad Tanweer [7], made videos prior to their deaths and they both state clearly that it was British intervention in the Muslim world, and Iraq in particular, which motivated their action.

In February 2003, the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) produced an assessment called International Terrorism: War with Iraq, which was in the Government’s hands prior to the invasion. Aspects of it came into the public domain in September 2003 with the publication of the Intelligence & Security Committee’s report Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction – Intelligence and Assessments [8]. According to this report (paragraph 126):

“The JIC assessed that al-Qaida and associated groups continued to represent by far the greatest terrorist threat to Western interests, and that threat would be heightened by military action against Iraq.”

The latter view was advanced by most opponents of military action against Iraq. The Government chose not to divulge to Parliament that the intelligence services shared this view, lest it reduce MPs’ enthusiasm for the invasion.

Britain’s turn
When al-Qaida struck London on 7 July 2005, the political establishment in Britain was more or less unanimous that British intervention in Iraq played no part in bringing it about. Instead, we were told that Western democracies are all under threat from Muslim extremists, who want to destroy our way of life (whatever that means) and it was simply Britain’s turn on 7 July 2005.

This stance was maintained even though in July 2005 the MI5 website said in a page headed Threat to the UK from International Terrorism:

“In recent years, Iraq has become a dominant issue for a range of extremist groups and individuals in the UK and Europe.”

This straightforward message remained on the MI5 website for the next couple of years.

A few months earlier, in April 2005, a JIC report entitled International Terrorism: Impact of Iraq was even more explicit about the motivating effect of the invasion of Iraq. The following extracts from it were published in The Sunday Times on 2 April 2006 [9]:

“Iraq is likely to be an important motivating factor for some time to come in the radicalisation of British Muslims and for those extremists who view attacks against the UK as legitimate.”

“There is a clear consensus within the UK extremist community that Iraq is a legitimate jihad and should be supported. Iraq has re-energised and refocused a wide range of networks in the UK.”

“We judge that the conflict in Iraq has exacerbated the threat from international terrorism and will continue to have an impact in the long term. It has reinforced the determination of terrorists who were already committed to attacking the West and motivated others who were not.”

“Some jihadists who leave Iraq will play leading roles in recruiting and organising terrorist networks, sharing their skills and possibly conducting attacks. It is inevitable that some will come to the UK.”

This was the considered assessment of the British intelligence services a few months before al-Qaida struck in London. So, British military action in Iraq was an outstanding success in putting Britain firmly on al-Qaida’s hit list.

Wretched capitulation
However, in July 2005 and since, the Government has done its best to give the impression that the threat to Britain from al-Qaida is unconnected with the British intervention in Iraq, or any other aspect of British foreign policy towards the Muslim world.

In his final address to the Labour Party conference, the Prime Minister dismissed the notion out of hand, saying:

“This is a struggle that will last a generation and more. But this I believe passionately: we will not win until we shake ourselves free of the wretched capitulation to the propaganda of the enemy, that somehow we are the ones responsible.

“This terrorism isn’t our fault. We didn’t cause it. It’s not the consequence of foreign policy. It’s an attack on our way of life.” [10]

Lord West’s rubbish (or bollocks)
Last January, in the aftermath of Israel’s assault on Gaza, for the first time that I can recall a Government minister admitted in a straightforward fashion that this was “bollocks”. The minister in question was the former head of the navy, Lord West, who was appointed by Gordon Brown as the Home Office Minister responsible for security and counter-terrorism.

According to the Daily Telegraph on 28 January 2009, Lord West told a conference in London:

“Tony Blair, I’m afraid, would never accept that our foreign policy actually had any impact on radicalization. …That’s clearly rubbish.” [11]

(The Guardian report said he used the word “bollocks” [12]).

On Gaza, he said:

“To pretend what happens abroad has no impact is nonsense. … This business in Gaza has not helped us at all in our counter- radicalization policy. There is no doubt about that.”

Lord West is famous for opposing 42-day detention on the Today programme on BBC Radio 4 one morning in November 2007 – and recanting an hour later after he had breakfast with Gordon Brown. He has yet to recant on this issue. However, the Home Office did offer a clarification on his behalf: according to the Telegraph:

“A Home Office spokesman said that the minister had meant that foreign policy was illegitimately used as a ‘tool’ by radicals and terrorists.”

Which in no way negates West’s plain statement that British foreign policy has an impact on Muslim radicalisation – as the British intelligence services have been saying for years.

No more bollocks?
Lord West claimed that “Gordon Brown is much clearer” than Tony Blair on this issue, that is, unlike Blair, he accepts that foreign policy does have an impact on radicalisation. That isn’t obvious looking in from outside.

Today, the MI5 website page “international terrorism” no longer mentions Iraq. Now al-Qaida’s motivation is described in the following terms:

“The terrorists draw their inspiration from a global message articulated by figures such as Usama bin Laden. The message is uncompromising and asserts that the West represents a threat to Islam; that loyalty to religion and loyalty to democratic institutions and values are incompatible; and that violence is the only proper response.” [13]

There, the crucial point that the primary motivation for al-Qaida terrorism against the West is Western interference in the Muslim world has been erased.

Jacqui Smith, Lord West’s boss in the Home Office, made a major speech on “the threat of international terrorism” to Britain on 15 October 2008 [14]. In a 3,000-word speech, she provided the following penetrating analysis of what drives al-Qaida to commit terrorism:

“They want a reordering of global political structures and a separation of faith groups …. and to subvert our institutions.”

No mention there of foreign policy being a driver for Muslim radicalisation.

As for the Prime Minister, he regularly trots out the usual Blairite guff about British troops being in Afghanistan to defend “our way of life”. Here’s an extract from his remarks to troops in Helmand on 13 December 2008:

“There is a line of terror, a chain of terror that goes from the Pakistani and Afghan mountains right across and could end up in the cities and towns of Britain and indeed any other country. And we are safer in Britain, the people of Britain are safer because of what you do here, checking the Taliban, operating as the frontline against them, making sure that they cannot make advances, holding them in and holding al Qaeda in as well, and that is the important work that you do.” [15]

The truth is the other way up: the best way of making the people of Britain safer is for Britain to stop interfering in the Muslim world, for British troops to go home and stay home. 149 British troops have died in Afghanistan (and 599 have been wounded) [16] – and in the process the people of Britain have been made less safe.

Pursue Prevent Protect Prepare
The Home Secretary has just produced an enormous document entitled Pursue Prevent Protect Prepare: The United Kingdom’s Strategy for Countering International Terrorism [17].

You will search in vain in this 176-page document for any echo of the intelligence services judgement that “the conflict in Iraq has exacerbated the threat from international terrorism and will continue to have an impact in the long term”.

However, there is a peripheral acknowledgement that foreign policy, or rather a mistaken perception of foreign policy by Muslims, has some impact. For example, it says:

“Radicalisation has a range of causes (including perceptions of our foreign policy)” (p 9)

And, in the “prevent” section, which is concerned with “stopping people becoming terrorists or supporting violent extremism”, it says:

“Other grievances are based on a perception of this country and Government policy, notably foreign policy. Many of these perceptions are misinformed. We will explain and debate our policies and refute claims made about them by those who support terrorism.” (p 91)

So, once Muslims have their incorrect ideas corrected, radicalisation will subside.

Roots of democracy firmly planted?
According to General Cooper, not only have we managed to reduce the al-Qaida presence in Iraq to a level somewhat higher than it was before we started, we have also planted the roots of democracy firmly in Iraq by our intervention.

Of course, as I said earlier, bringing democracy to Iraq wasn’t an objective of our invasion either. Before the invasion, Prime Minister Blair stated categorically that he would be content to leave Saddam Hussein in his place if he got rid of his “weapons of mass destruction”, in accordance with Security Council resolutions. Blair told the House of Commons on 25 February 2003:

“I detest his regime – I hope most people do – but even now, he could save it by complying with the UN’s demand. Even now, we are prepared to go the extra step to achieve disarmament peacefully.”

That was Blair’s story at any rate – and who am I to call him a liar.

The officially stated objectives
Six years on, it is worth recalling the officially stated objectives of British military action against Iraq. The operative part of the motion supporting military action, passed by the House of Commons on 18 March 2003, was:

“That this House … believes that the United Kingdom must uphold the authority of the United Nations as set out in Resolution 1441 and many Resolutions preceding it, and therefore supports the decision of Her Majesty’s Government that the United Kingdom should use all means necessary to ensure the disarmament of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction;” [3]

The official document specifying the military objectives of Operation Telic, the operation mounted by British forces, states:

“The prime objective remains to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction and their associated programmes and means of delivery, including prohibited ballistic missiles, as set out in relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs).” [4]

This document, entitled Iraq: Military Campaign Objectives, used to be prominent on the Operation Telic website, as one would expect. Today, it’s no longer prominent there. The Operation Telic website answers the question: What are British forces doing in Iraq? in a very different manner:

“British Armed Forces have been helping the Iraqis to secure and rebuild their country after years of neglect and conflict. The mission of the MNF-I has been working in partnership with the Iraqi Government to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq. …

“During his speech to Parliament on 22 July 2008, Prime Minister Gordon Brown underlined our mission objective in Iraq, saying that the UK seeks: ‘The creation of an independent, prosperous, democratic Iraq that is free of terrorist violence, secure within its borders and a stable presence in the region - something that is firmly in Britain’s interests and in the interests of the world as a whole.’” [18]

Needless to say, “weapons of mass destruction” aren’t mentioned.

A price worth paying?
General Cooper expressed the opinion that the 179 deaths and 315 injuries suffered by British troops was a price worth paying for the “success” we achieved in Iraq [5].

However, he didn’t address the question of whether the price paid by Iraqis was a price worth paying for this “success”. In fact, the general didn’t say one word about the death, injury and displacement of Iraqis, since British (and American) Armed Forces began “helping” them in March 2003.

At least a hundred thousand Iraqis, and perhaps many more, have been killed, as a result of the US/UK invasion and the destruction Iraqi state. Many more have been injured. About 2 million Iraqis are refugees in Syria and Jordan, and perhaps another 2 million are displaced internally. All this, thanks to our intervention.

We will ever know how many Iraqis have been killed, because, in the famous words of General Tommy Franks, the US commander of the invading forces: “We don’t do body counts”. If the bodies are Iraqi, he should have added for accuracy.

The estimates of Iraqi deaths that exist have, until recently, been put together by organisations other than the occupying powers. From the outset, the Iraq Body Count (IBC) organisation has compiled a count of Iraqi civilians killed from media reports of incidents. This count is inevitably an underestimate since not all incidents in which Iraqis die are reported in the media.

As of 22 March 2009, the IBC estimate was in the range 91,146 to 99,525 [19] (and the death toll is rising again). The IBC view is that the actual number could be double that. Other estimates have been much higher.

Had British (and American) forces stayed at home and refrained from “helping the Iraqis”, hundreds of thousands of them that are now dead would still be alive.

Operation Telic infomation
The Operation Telic website [20] provides an enormous amount of information about the British invasion and occupation of Iraq.

There, you can learn about British troop deployments – 46,000 initially, 4,100 today, all but 400 to be withdrawn by the end of July 2009, 179 killed, 315 wounded, 3,147 others admitted to hospital due to disease or non-battle injury, total cost of operation around £6.5 billion. There you can learn that today, apart from the US/UK, only Australia and Romania have troops in Iraq, compared with around 30 states a year ago. There you will about the “reconstruction” being carried out in Iraq with British money, including the extraordinary fact that “over 180 journalists have been trained in independent journalism and feature writing”.

But there’s not a single word about the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

Have Your Say: On British “success” in Iraq
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

BNP councillor ‘made up murders’

Tuesday, May 19th, 2009

A senior BNP member on the Greater London Assembly faces possible suspension after he admitted fabricating murders in a London borough amid a media frenzy over knife crime in the capital.

Have Your Say: BNP councillor ‘made up murders’
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

G20 protestors consider legal action

Monday, May 18th, 2009

A group of G20 protestors claiming to have been the victims of overly aggressive police tactics are considering taking legal action against the Metropolitan police, reports suggest.

Legal representatives for a group of climate camp demonstrators have apparently told the Met they may launch a judicial review of the tactics used by officers last month to contain the protests in central London.

Tactics such as the controversial “kettling” could be subject to a review, experts have warned.

Demonstrators who staged the Bishopsgate climate camp on April 1st are said to want an explanation of how the Met handled the event.

Sky News reports solicitors from the law firm Bindmans have submitted a “pre-action” letter to the Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson on their behalf.

The police have come in for fierce criticism of the handling of the London protests on the eve of the G20 summit. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) is currently investigating dozens of reports of police abuse as well as the ongoing inquiry into the death of Ian Tomlinson near the Bank of England last month.
© Adfero Ltd

Have Your Say: G20 protestors consider legal action
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Soldiers protected by human rights laws

Monday, May 18th, 2009

British troops are protected by human rights laws even while fighting overseas, according to a landmark judgment Monday centred on a soldier who died of heatstroke in Iraq.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) said it was “disappointed” by the Appeal Court ruling into the death of Private Jason Smith in 2003, and voiced concern over its impact on military decision-making in future.

The MoD can appeal against the ruling to the House of Lords, although it will have to pay costs whether it wins or loses, the Court of Appeal ruled.

Smith died in August 2003 after suffering a cardiac arrest, despite having repeatedly told medical staff that he was feeling seriously unwell in temperatures of more than 122 Fahrenheit.

His family took legal action after a 2006 inquest into his death found that it was caused “by a serious failure to recognise and take appropriate steps to address the difficulty that he had in adjusting to the climate”.

The MoD accepted that the 1998 Human Rights Act could extend to troops when they were in a military base abroad — but not to the battlefield itself.

“We are surprised and disappointed by this judgement,” said Armed Forces Minister Bob Ainsworth.

“While it does not affect the position concerning Private Smith, it potentially has very serious implications for the ability of our forces — and those of our allies — to conduct military operations overseas,” he added.

And an MoD spokesman said: “We are very concerned by the attempt to insert lawyers into the chain of command in the middle of a battle, which would only create uncertainty, hesitation and potentially greater risk to our people.”

“In the heat of battle during dynamic and fast-moving military operations on foreign territory, the UK could not secure the rights and freedoms which the Human Rights Act seeks to guarantee,” he added.

But a lawyer for Smith’s family, Jocelyn Cockburn, welcomed the ruling.

“We are absolutely delighted by the outcome which has the logical conclusion that, like all other citizens of the UK, soldiers have the protection set out under the Human Rights Act,” she said.

“The proposition of the Ministry of Defence that these rights should be removed from them when they are deployed abroad on active service doesn’t reflect well on our government.”

AFP

Have Your Say: Soldiers protected by human rights laws
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Street CCTV has little effect on crime

Monday, May 18th, 2009

The Guardian |

The use of closed-circuit television in city and town centres and public housing estates does not have a significant effect on crime, according to Home Office-funded research to be distributed to all police forces in England and Wales this summer, reports The Guardian.

The review of 44 research studies on CCTV schemes by the Campbell Collaboration found that they do have a modest impact on crime overall but are at their most effective in cutting vehicle crime in car parks, especially when used alongside improved lighting and the introduction of security guards.

The authors, who include Cambridge University criminologist David Farrington, say while their results lend support for the continued use of CCTV, schemes should be far more narrowly targeted at reducing vehicle crime in car parks.

Results from a 2007 study in Cambridge which looked at the impact of 30 cameras in the city centre showed that they had no effect on crime but led to an increase in the reporting of assault, robbery and other violent crimes to the police.

Home Office ministers cited the review last week in their official response to the critical report from the House of Lords constitution committee on surveillance published earlier this year. The peers warned that the steady expansion of the “surveillance society”, including the spread of CCTV, risked undermining fundamental freedoms, including the right to privacy.

In their response the Home Office disclosed that the National Police Improvement Agency is planning new research into the effectiveness of CCTV. The Campbell Collaboration review, by Farrington and a Massachusetts University criminologist, Brandon Welsh, concludes that CCTV is more effective in reducing crime in Britain than in other countries – as the Home Office points out.

But it also makes clear that of the 44 research studies the authors reviewed, only seven covered countries outside Britain and four of those involved the United States.

The Campbell Collaboration report says that CCTV is now the single most heavily-funded crime prevention measure operating outside the criminal justice system and its rapid growth has come with a huge price tag.

It adds that £170m was spent on camera schemes in town and city centres, car parks and residential areas between 1999 and 2001 alone. “Over the last decade, CCTV accounted for more thanthree quarters of total spending on crime prevention by the British Home Office,” the report says.

The Lords report said that £500m was spent in Britain on CCTV in the decade up to 2006, money which in the past would have gone on street lighting or neighbourhood crime prevention initiatives.

Welsh and Farrington say there has been concern that all this funding has been based on a handful of apparently successful schemes that were usually less than rigorously evaluated, done with varying degrees of competence and varying degrees of independence from government.

Their research review, which was funded by the Home Office and the Swedish Council for Crime Prevention, says that future CCTV schemes need high quality, independent evaluation.

Have Your Say: Street CCTV has little effect on crime
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Related News

• Councillors oppose identity card scheme
• Pointless ID Card project has no flicking point
• ID cards snubbed in Manchester
• Say ‘”no” to ID cards…
• YOU’LL PAY FOR ID CARDS…TWICE

This entry was posted on Friday, May 29th, 2009 at 6:32 pm and is filed under Contributions & Guests . 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.