![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
mahnmut.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpolitics...And is probably joined by Huxley in the rotating exercise. Brave New World - does it already exist in our real world? How about Britain?
The London metropolitan police will soon have new extended rights, allowing them to download all data from the mobile phones of suspects and store it for unlimited amount of time. Regardless if any charges have ultimately been pressed or not. The news comes a few weeks after it transpired that the British Parliament was discussing a bill that aims to give the GCHQ (the communications controlling center) new jurisdiction and allow it to tap all phone and internet communications. This has renewed the controversy on the issue how much people's personal rights ought to be limited in this endless fight with crime and terrorism.
The technology for squeezing personal data out of mobile phones is already being used by half the police stations across London, and it's considered being introduced for the whole country now. Up till now the phones were being sent to a special HQ and the extraction took several weeks. But now a new technology that'll be installed on the spot will allow the instantaneous extraction of all the info. 300 police officers will be trained to use the new gadgets, and the whole thing is going to be tested within a year.
Privacy International, a NGO, is among the most vocal opponents of this measure, stating violation of human rights. Given the stream of similar legislation and draft bills that are being discussed in Parliament, I can totally see how people in Britain are getting very concerned that the authorities are going to abuse their new powers, and continue taking civil rights one by one. In fact, as it turns out the only other country in the world with similar measures is... China (Big Brother Watch, another NGO says).
The government is now being described as "maniacal" and "paranoid", and collecting personal data is just the latest of many controversial steps to tighten security at the expense of freedoms. Britain has become the country with the largest number of CCTVs per capita in the world - there are 2 million surveillance cameras in public places, which means one camera for every 32 people in the country. If that isn't a police state, then I don't know what isn't.
This particular measure causes a lot of concern, because the extraction of data from mobile phones seems utterly ungrounded. For years the British police has enjoyed the right to take DNA samples from every suspect, and store it indefinitely even if no charges have been pressed. This has caused a wide-spread abuse of this right, the police temporarily detaining people, and collecting their DNA data. As of today, the national database already has the blood data of roughly 5 million of the British citizens. Moreover, there are suspicions that the samples are being collected by some arbitrary criteria, a pattern of disproportionate representation of people of color in the database.
Of course, as one might expect, the police claims the collection of DNA data is actually done to the citizen's benefit, as this way it'll be easier to acquit the innocent citizens in case of future detention, as their blood profile would be easily available to the authorities. In defense of the excessive police authority, they use the argument about the increase of violent crime with non-fire weapons - like knives. There've been 32 thousand knife "offences" in England and Wales for last year, including a surge in crimes with knives in schools. The same research points to the existence of 250+ street gangs in and around London, most of them relying on knives. I'd suggest we ban all cutlery as well, then. And next: all frying pans and saucepans. And don't forget cricket - it uses some pretty dangerous weapons:
The British police has undergone some drastic transformation in recent years, in their attempts to curb the rising crime and the omnipresent terrorist threat. The famous notion of the unarmed English "bobby" is now becoming obsolete. Although in most cases the bobbies still don't carry firearms, the number of armed police is steadily increasing. The latest data shows that in 2008 there were 2500+ armed police in London alone, which amounts to 8% of all the police in the city. Additionally, there are 3500 armed police across the country, under the direct jurisdiction of the ministry of defense, a police force that in essence is a separate branch of the forces of peace and order. This group is especially used for guarding key places in the country, like government buildings, airports, and the coming Olympics. Apart from their personal handguns they'll be patrolling with semi-automatic assault rifles and automatic pistols (British and German made). Look how cute it is:
The police insists that it's important that they should have such equipment at their disposal. For the greater good of society, of course. As is the case with many other concessions they've got from that same society. In 2006 a law was passed, allowing them to detain people for a month with no charges. I don't recall the Britons protesting against that too much. There've even been unsuccessful attempts in Parliament to extend this period to 3 months, and I suspect it's a matter of time before that succeeds..
The fear of terrorism in Britain can sometimes lead to pretty absurd situations, like the case with one Abu Qatada. He was not allowed to see his lawyer, while he was never presented with the list of charges against him. The explanation for this was that if the suspect turned out innocent, the charges that would've been shown to him, could prompt him to fulfill them, once he found himself free. I.e. if he saw what he had been accused of, once he was released, he'd take some good ideas and actually do the crime, but this time for real. Which is ridiculous beyond comprehension.
Now Cameron's government wants to go even further, allowing the police to keep secret all investigations of fatalities caused by the police. They don't feel obliged to provide disclosure to the public about potential atrocities committed by its very servants.
The notion that the British government is turning the country more and more into Orwell's 1984 society, are already well known for a long time. The phrase Big Brother Britain pops up around the press frequently. The Guardian columnist Marc Valee often makes parallels between the Orwellian dystopia and the current state of the British society. He points at the tough laws that are meant for fighting this eternal bogeyman that is terrorism, but in reality are gradually taking away the rights of the ordinary people. For more than a decade, Valee points out, Britain has had laws allowing the police to arbitrarily search anyone it doesn't like. A right that the EU declared illegal in back in 2010. But I don't recall Britons protesting too much against that law, either. Meanwhile, the stats shows that for the 10 years of its existence, the Stop & Search law has allowed the British police to conduct over 100 thousand random searches, and all of that has led to how many arrests on suspicions of terrorism? You guessed right from the first try. Answer: exactly ZERO.
The human rights organizations are concerned not only with the excessive powers of the police, but also those of the civil institutions, especially in regards to minor offences. Laws and decrees are being cited allowing civil municipal officers to enter private homes without a police warrant - for example to check if the electric appliances in your home aren't consuming "too much" energy, or if the nice view from your balcony doesn't mean you ought to be charged a slightly higher property tax. That's bloody nice, isn't it?
Such extreme situations have become customary for Britain, and the list of documented excessive penalties for minor offences is constantly growing. A mother was charged J75 because her 4 year old toddler had dropped food in a pond to feed the ducks. Such outrage, kid you should be ashamed! A man was fined J210 because the litter in his bin was showing a bit over the edge. Not a pretty sight! Never mind that since the London terrorist attacks, all rubbish bins have been removed from major street places and the rubbish basically rolls on the ground in large black bags in the evening, only to be messed up and scavenged by the foxes at night. Speaking of bins, another guy was charged J200 for throwing a letter envelope in the glass bin instead of the paper bin. Ironically, the charges were pressed by the municipal authorities after some smartass officer dug out the envelope from the bin (yes, because the Royal Mail still exists in UK... and because municipal officers regularly dig through people's rubbish), and so he found the address of the perpetrator written there! OMG.
I'm sure Orwell would like to write a sequel...
The London metropolitan police will soon have new extended rights, allowing them to download all data from the mobile phones of suspects and store it for unlimited amount of time. Regardless if any charges have ultimately been pressed or not. The news comes a few weeks after it transpired that the British Parliament was discussing a bill that aims to give the GCHQ (the communications controlling center) new jurisdiction and allow it to tap all phone and internet communications. This has renewed the controversy on the issue how much people's personal rights ought to be limited in this endless fight with crime and terrorism.
The technology for squeezing personal data out of mobile phones is already being used by half the police stations across London, and it's considered being introduced for the whole country now. Up till now the phones were being sent to a special HQ and the extraction took several weeks. But now a new technology that'll be installed on the spot will allow the instantaneous extraction of all the info. 300 police officers will be trained to use the new gadgets, and the whole thing is going to be tested within a year.
Privacy International, a NGO, is among the most vocal opponents of this measure, stating violation of human rights. Given the stream of similar legislation and draft bills that are being discussed in Parliament, I can totally see how people in Britain are getting very concerned that the authorities are going to abuse their new powers, and continue taking civil rights one by one. In fact, as it turns out the only other country in the world with similar measures is... China (Big Brother Watch, another NGO says).
The government is now being described as "maniacal" and "paranoid", and collecting personal data is just the latest of many controversial steps to tighten security at the expense of freedoms. Britain has become the country with the largest number of CCTVs per capita in the world - there are 2 million surveillance cameras in public places, which means one camera for every 32 people in the country. If that isn't a police state, then I don't know what isn't.
This particular measure causes a lot of concern, because the extraction of data from mobile phones seems utterly ungrounded. For years the British police has enjoyed the right to take DNA samples from every suspect, and store it indefinitely even if no charges have been pressed. This has caused a wide-spread abuse of this right, the police temporarily detaining people, and collecting their DNA data. As of today, the national database already has the blood data of roughly 5 million of the British citizens. Moreover, there are suspicions that the samples are being collected by some arbitrary criteria, a pattern of disproportionate representation of people of color in the database.
Of course, as one might expect, the police claims the collection of DNA data is actually done to the citizen's benefit, as this way it'll be easier to acquit the innocent citizens in case of future detention, as their blood profile would be easily available to the authorities. In defense of the excessive police authority, they use the argument about the increase of violent crime with non-fire weapons - like knives. There've been 32 thousand knife "offences" in England and Wales for last year, including a surge in crimes with knives in schools. The same research points to the existence of 250+ street gangs in and around London, most of them relying on knives. I'd suggest we ban all cutlery as well, then. And next: all frying pans and saucepans. And don't forget cricket - it uses some pretty dangerous weapons:
The British police has undergone some drastic transformation in recent years, in their attempts to curb the rising crime and the omnipresent terrorist threat. The famous notion of the unarmed English "bobby" is now becoming obsolete. Although in most cases the bobbies still don't carry firearms, the number of armed police is steadily increasing. The latest data shows that in 2008 there were 2500+ armed police in London alone, which amounts to 8% of all the police in the city. Additionally, there are 3500 armed police across the country, under the direct jurisdiction of the ministry of defense, a police force that in essence is a separate branch of the forces of peace and order. This group is especially used for guarding key places in the country, like government buildings, airports, and the coming Olympics. Apart from their personal handguns they'll be patrolling with semi-automatic assault rifles and automatic pistols (British and German made). Look how cute it is:
The police insists that it's important that they should have such equipment at their disposal. For the greater good of society, of course. As is the case with many other concessions they've got from that same society. In 2006 a law was passed, allowing them to detain people for a month with no charges. I don't recall the Britons protesting against that too much. There've even been unsuccessful attempts in Parliament to extend this period to 3 months, and I suspect it's a matter of time before that succeeds..
The fear of terrorism in Britain can sometimes lead to pretty absurd situations, like the case with one Abu Qatada. He was not allowed to see his lawyer, while he was never presented with the list of charges against him. The explanation for this was that if the suspect turned out innocent, the charges that would've been shown to him, could prompt him to fulfill them, once he found himself free. I.e. if he saw what he had been accused of, once he was released, he'd take some good ideas and actually do the crime, but this time for real. Which is ridiculous beyond comprehension.
Now Cameron's government wants to go even further, allowing the police to keep secret all investigations of fatalities caused by the police. They don't feel obliged to provide disclosure to the public about potential atrocities committed by its very servants.
The notion that the British government is turning the country more and more into Orwell's 1984 society, are already well known for a long time. The phrase Big Brother Britain pops up around the press frequently. The Guardian columnist Marc Valee often makes parallels between the Orwellian dystopia and the current state of the British society. He points at the tough laws that are meant for fighting this eternal bogeyman that is terrorism, but in reality are gradually taking away the rights of the ordinary people. For more than a decade, Valee points out, Britain has had laws allowing the police to arbitrarily search anyone it doesn't like. A right that the EU declared illegal in back in 2010. But I don't recall Britons protesting too much against that law, either. Meanwhile, the stats shows that for the 10 years of its existence, the Stop & Search law has allowed the British police to conduct over 100 thousand random searches, and all of that has led to how many arrests on suspicions of terrorism? You guessed right from the first try. Answer: exactly ZERO.
The human rights organizations are concerned not only with the excessive powers of the police, but also those of the civil institutions, especially in regards to minor offences. Laws and decrees are being cited allowing civil municipal officers to enter private homes without a police warrant - for example to check if the electric appliances in your home aren't consuming "too much" energy, or if the nice view from your balcony doesn't mean you ought to be charged a slightly higher property tax. That's bloody nice, isn't it?
Such extreme situations have become customary for Britain, and the list of documented excessive penalties for minor offences is constantly growing. A mother was charged J75 because her 4 year old toddler had dropped food in a pond to feed the ducks. Such outrage, kid you should be ashamed! A man was fined J210 because the litter in his bin was showing a bit over the edge. Not a pretty sight! Never mind that since the London terrorist attacks, all rubbish bins have been removed from major street places and the rubbish basically rolls on the ground in large black bags in the evening, only to be messed up and scavenged by the foxes at night. Speaking of bins, another guy was charged J200 for throwing a letter envelope in the glass bin instead of the paper bin. Ironically, the charges were pressed by the municipal authorities after some smartass officer dug out the envelope from the bin (yes, because the Royal Mail still exists in UK... and because municipal officers regularly dig through people's rubbish), and so he found the address of the perpetrator written there! OMG.
I'm sure Orwell would like to write a sequel...
(no subject)
Date: 20/6/12 16:27 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/6/12 16:33 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/6/12 16:43 (UTC)Man, that's some scary stuff. I wonder how long it will take for that idea to gain traction and skip across the Pond to the US and/or Canada?
You know, my little smile there really seems out of place -- this issue should scare a lot more people a lot more than it does.
Thanks for posting.
(no subject)
Date: 20/6/12 16:45 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/6/12 17:17 (UTC)I may just be a pug, but I'm a smart little guy! (an ace, if you will!)
(no subject)
Date: 20/6/12 18:13 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/6/12 20:52 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 21/6/12 05:41 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/6/12 18:07 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/6/12 18:18 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/6/12 18:33 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/6/12 20:06 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/6/12 20:10 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/6/12 20:19 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/6/12 17:07 (UTC)The English measures remind me of one of my favorite movies from the '80s. "Mistake! We don't make mistakes:"
(no subject)
Date: 20/6/12 17:41 (UTC)To be honest, the most bad-tasting aspect is the notion that you can close investigation records indefinitely to outside agencies and the public. The only parallel I can come to think of in a democracy would be certain laws during the Bush Jr era in the US. (which then the current president amended, something few know to give him credit for)
(no subject)
Date: 20/6/12 17:55 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/6/12 18:00 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/6/12 18:00 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/6/12 18:08 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/6/12 19:57 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/6/12 18:26 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/6/12 19:56 (UTC)Gypsies ask police to open up field so they can reverse their caravans onto illegal site - and then park up and stay put (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2160972/Gypsies-set-camp-asking-police-open-Fareham-field-reverse-caravans.html#ixzz1yMacj8Vk)
The police let them in but seem powerless to arrest them or kick them out and the city council is having to file civil suit to remove 15 caravans. I'm vaguely disappointed in my totalitarian overlords when they can't handle a few pikeys.
(no subject)
Date: 20/6/12 20:59 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/6/12 23:51 (UTC)Apparently squatters are nearly impossible to remove in Britain as well, something about slack property laws.
(no subject)
Date: 21/6/12 07:24 (UTC)Gypsies around here in BG are more settled in neighborhoods.
(no subject)
Date: 20/6/12 22:31 (UTC)