A few weeks ago, I was watching the above video on YouTube (I was researching conspiracy theories for The Yesterday Tree at the time — that’s my excuse, and I’m sticking to it 😉 ) in which Noam Chomsky points out, quite correctly, in my opinion, that every authoritarian government (i.e. every government — it’s a matter of degree… of what they are allowed to get away with) benefits from incidents such as the 911 attacks in that it allows them to rein in their populace more effectively (“effectively”, that is, from their point of view.) This is not to say, of course, that the Bush administration planned and implemented the attacks as some (idiots) would have us believe, but it is very much an observable phenomenon, and one which I was reminded of when my friend Lou today sent me the article below.
“Underage drinkers are being arrested by police using laws brought in to combat organised crime, terrorism and identity theft, it has emerged.
“Teenagers using fake, borrowed or stolen ID to get into pubs are being targeted using the Identity Card Act. Offenders can be jailed for up to ten years.”
Now I’m not disputing that we have some very real social problems, in part centred around under-age-drinking, in the UK. The behaviour of some of these young people impacts severely on whole communities and, yes, it has to be addressed — or more to the point, the underlying problems that prompt this kind of behaviour need to be addressed.
But is this the way to do it? No. Absolutely not. We have enough existing laws in place to deal with this problem without taking such an extreme approach. As far as I’m concerned, the comment form Inspector Neil Mutch of South Yorkshire Police pretty much hit the nail on the head:
“The Act was brought out for terrorism but it suits us very nicely.”
Lazy policing. This Act was implemented to protect the UK citizen from serious crime and terrorism, not to make Inspector Mutch’s job that little bit easier.
© 2008 Gary William Murning
“Ministers have been accused of a “massive failure of duty” after thousands of criminals’ details, stored on a computer memory stick, were lost.”
It shouldn’t really be a surprise, by now. We have been faced with so many similar stories over recent months that it is difficult to know what more can be said on the subject, other than to once again point out that this underscores the argument against the planned Super Database and ID cards.
Our current sorry excuse for a government (and, I’m sad to say, I suspect it would be the same whoever was in power) and the private firms that they employ to do research for them et cetera are quite simply incapable of responsibly handling large amounts of personal data.
“On Tuesday, a BBC analysis found sensitive data potentially affecting more than four million people had been lost by government departments in the year to April.“
If you are also opposed to ID cards/database, you can register your opposition here.
© 2008 Gary William Murning
After top-secret documents were left on a train by a Cabinet Office official last week, we now have another unforgivable security breach — this time in the form of a stolen computer from the constituency office of Hazel Blears.
Naturally, thefts happen. Ms Blears cannot necessarily be held responsible for that. What she is accountable for, however, is the fact that the machine…
“… contained a combination of constituency and government information which should not have been held on it.”
And they expect us to believe that we will be safe and protected when they institute their SuperDatabase!
I always tremble with eye-popping rage when I hear talk of ID cards and databases. You quite possibly already know that. But it is especially true when I read about the subject and see it stated that, apparently, the public is “sleepwalking into a surveillance society”. The semi-conscious horde, it seems, is letting it happen.
Aww, shucks, and there was I, eyes wide open, very much awake, thinking that the government was the bad guy in all this.
While a good number of us shout very loudly that such moves are unacceptable, the zombie-like proles are, if such statements are to be taken at face-vaule, giving it their silent approval.
What a nasty (and highly transparent) piece of obfuscation.
I’ve been opposed to the introduction of ID cards for a good while, now — valuing my privacy and deeply suspicious of any move by government to impact upon it.
This article and this television drama therefore got my attention. The latter is a near-future thriller taking “an arresting and compelling look at how technology could transform Britain into a surveillance society — threatening human relationships and destroying trust.” It’s frighteningly plausible in its concept, all the more so because it is infinitely recognisable. The Britain of The Last Enemy is our Britain. Some of us just haven’t realised it, yet.
The article in question greeted me this morning when I finished writing. I toodled along to the BBC to catch the headlines, read “Rethink on Identity Card Plans” and thought, “Oh, good.” Needless to say I was suitably disappointed when I read:
2009 – Compulsory for 200,000 UK citizens and EU nationals who work in ‘sensitive’ airport jobs
2011/12 – Biometric passports issued, applicants can choose to get ID card.
2017 – Full roll-out of identity cards.
Private firms will be encouraged to set-up “biometric enrolment centres” where passport and ID card applicants will be fingerprinted. [Sounds positively Orwellian, not to mention a security issue.]
A home office spokesman said the government charged for other forms of ID such as driving licences and passports and it though the planned charge of £30 for an ID card was “fair”. [We have to pay for the privelege!]
So, not much of a rethink. The very notion of an ID database is disturbing. Yes, we are all on any number of databases already, but this is significantly different. I don’t want it.
So I went here and registered my opposition.
As decent, law-abiding citizens, we all have something to hide. Especially when such data is to be held by government agencies.