Barack Obama 2006 and 2013

2006

SEN. BARACK OBAMA: I have no doubt that General Hayden will be confirmed. But I am going to reluctantly vote against him to send a signal to this administration that even in these circumstances, even in these trying times, President Bush is not above the law. No President is above the law. I am voting against Mr. Hayden in the hope that he will be more humble before the great weight of responsibility that he has not only to protect our lives but to protect our democracy.
Americans fought a Revolution in part over the right to be free from unreasonable searches–to ensure that our Government could not come knocking in the middle of the night for no reason. We need to find a way forward to make sure we can stop terrorists while protecting the privacy and liberty of innocent Americans. We have to find a way to give the President the power he needs to protect us, while making sure he does not abuse that power. It is possible to do that. We have done it before. We could do it again.

2013
Watch here.
U.S. President Obama staunchly defends U.S. government programs conducting surveillance of Americans' phone and Internet activity


Do I hear 'hypocrite'?
Do you trust Barack Obama and his cabal to strike the right balance?

Does government have to be about control and surveillance?

The last Labour government, albeit reluctantly, stopped the "Intercept Modernisation Plan" so I was irritated to note that the new Conservative/Lib Deb coalition government have reactivated this project. Open Rights have a campaign running, do sign up...

Two Surveillance Britain stories

The Mail report what happened when a rail passenger dared to take photos on an overcrowded train:

'A rail passenger who took photographs of an overcrowded train carriage was threatened with arrest under anti-terror laws.

Nigel Roberts, 41, was so appalled by the cramped conditions commuters have to endure he warned a ticket inspector that dangerous overcrowding could cost lives.

But when the IT worker showed his mobile phone photos of luggage-crammed aisles and exits he was told it is 'illegal' to take such pictures and threatened with prosecution.

The inspector then demanded Mr Roberts' personal details.'

Big Brother Watch reports on the extent of CCTV Smart Cars in Britain:

'54 CCTV Smart Cars operated in 31 local councils in Britain, caught and fined at least 188,000 motorists between April 2009 and March 2010.'

"It indicates a clear intention to introduce higher government control of a critical internet function..."

"It indicates a clear intention to introduce higher government control of a critical internet function through what may appear to be a purely technological discussion"

What does and does it really?

Take a read of this from the BBC and keep an eye on The Register for their take on this.

What are they recording?

There seems to be some confusion as to whether ISPs are recording all web page accesses for possible government (and third party interrogation) or not. This confusion certainly existed at the BBC yesterday as the article devoted to this story went through quite a few changes before this sentence was added at 16:02:52:

"Please note, in an earlier version of this story we incorrectly stated that ISPs would be storing details of website visits. This is not the case. "

So what, definitively, is the case?

The Telegraph reports that:

"Ministers are drawing up plans to cut the speed limit on single-carriageway roads in the countryside from 60mph to 50mph. "

This Labour government and its fellow travellers in the enviromentalist sector as well as the health and safety Nazis have done their best to make driving as unpleasant, uncomfortable and expensive as possible. Drivers are corralled into less and less of the road, monitored by CCTV, GATOSs, average speed cameras, speed traps, ANPRS etc. etc. etc. and fined for the smallest infractions of the law with no defence allowed.

Another Labour surveillance database

I learn that our surveillance database obsessed Labour government are now compiling a database to track and store for 10 years the international travel records of millions of Britons. The database will store the names, addresses, telephone numbers, seat reservations, travel itineraries and credit card details of travellers.

Isn't that brilliant a government database with my credit card details and address details on it just ready for the data to be lost and to fall into the hands of the unscrupulous. A database with my travel records on it that might establish likely patterns of holidaying so that a dishonest civil servant could extract such information and pass it onto burglars who would be happy to pay for such information.


I assume that this Labour government will claim that the database is essential in the fight against crime, terrorism and illegal immigration. I also assume that they are lying about this as they are about most everything else that they tell us.

This Labour government seem to think that they can justify almost any restriction of personal freedom in the name of "fighting terrorism"; meanwhile suspected terrorists are allowed to live in the community because of fear of infringing their human rights by expelling them and preachers of hate can spout their poison because of the fear of inflaming race relations by arresting them.


The Labour government have destroyed the economy of this economy, that is becoming very clear; they have also almost destroyed the very fabric of society, that will become clearer soon.

CCTV Britain

The Telegraph report:

"when the Fletcher family went for a pre-Christmas treat at the Manor Restaurant in Waddesdon Manor, near Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, they were disappointed with their meal.

Marilyn Fletcher, 57, sent a letter complaining of slow service and poor food, in a lunch which cost £127 for four.

But she was left astonished by the restaurant's response. Simon Offen, the catering manager, emailed her to say he disputed her version of events after he had "watched and listened with interest to the video recording of her table".

Mrs Fletcher was horrified that the meal had been recorded on CCTV cameras, and said her family found it "extremely disturbing" and felt "outrage at the invasion of our privacy".

In a letter to the National Trust's director-general, Dame Fiona Reynolds, she asked: "Does the National Trust condone recording, watching and listening to private conversations at customers' tables in National Trust restaurants?"

Mrs Fletcher, from Great Missenden, near High Wycombe, has demanded to see and listen to the recording, and has questioned the legality of Mr Offen's actions.

"There was no legitimate or lawful reason why Mr Offen should have been recording conversations at our table and then listening to them 'with interest'," she said.

A spokeswoman for the Information Commissioner said that CCTV cameras should only be used if there was a "genuine justification" for them, usually to prevent or detect crime. Recording conversations in a restaurant would be "deeply intrusive", she said."

What a lovely country the UK has become if our meals are now recorded as well as our car journeys, train journeys, walks in London etc. etc. etc.

The twenty first winner of the weekly "No shit, Sherlock" award

This week the winner is Sir Ken Macdonald, the current Director of Public Prosecutions although he will retire in 10 days time. He is reported to have said that the state was poised to take powers to keep information on everyone and "we might end up living with something we can't bear."

"We need to take very great care not to fall into a way of life in which freedom's back is broken by the relentless pressure of a security state."

"No shit, Sherlock"

Photography in public

I have blogged before about the problems ordinary people have when taking photos in public, especially the way that "the authorities" seem to take a dim view of anyone using a decent camera.

Now I see that one photographer in Scotland has received a criminal record because someone complained about having their photo taken. The fact that she was probably being filmed by at least one Council or Police CCTV camera at the time, the fact that most of us are being filmed as we walk through our cities is not meant to concern us, but if we dare to use a camera then the full weight of the law will be brought down on us.

They want to control us

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act has lead to local councils using the Act to tackle dog fouling, the unauthorised sale of pizzas and the abuse of the blue badge scheme for disabled drivers. Read The Telegraph's article on this entitled

"Anti-terrorism laws used to spy on noisy children - Councils are using anti-terrorism laws to spy on residents and tackle barking dogs and noisy children."

Public servants or our new lords and masters?

Database and Surveillance Britain

Mr Eugenides has the very worrying details.

Surveillance society

"Primary school children should be eligible for the DNA database if they exhibit behaviour indicating they may become criminals in later life, according to Britain's most senior police forensics expert."

This is an extract from this Guardian article that also contains this line "One teaching union warned that it was a step towards a 'police state'."


I know that the parallels between George Orwell's 1984 and modern day Britain are often commented upon but I believe they cannot be overstated, we are moving rather quickly to become a surveillance society.

Surveillance intensifies

I read in The Times that "A CAMERA that can see through people’s clothing at distances of up to 80ft has been developed to help detect weapons, drugs and explosives. The camera could be deployed in railway stations, shopping centres and other public spaces."


I have joked for a while now that the next step in security at airports would be for us to strip completely, maybe this is the intermediate step.

More on human rights in China

Did anyone, apart from the idiots in the IOC, really think that the Chinese government would honour their promise to improve its dismal human rights record and allow greater media freedom if it were allowed to host the Games? It appears that with just months to go before the Olympic games start, the Chinese government has started another crackdown on campaigners for democracy and has introduced even more intrusive surveillance equipment. Am I alone in thinking that our beloved Labour government maybe heading down the same route as the Chinese government in the run up to 2012? After all who could argue with the government bringing in extra security measures to protect the Olympics from harm?

CCTV doesn't work

At last what we all thought has been confirmed, CCTV doesn't deter drunken yobs.

Apparently "Graeme Gerrard, head of CCTV at the Association of Chief Police Officers, said that although Britain was now a virtual surveillance state, cameras usually failed to act as a deterrent for drunken yobs.

He told a parliamentary committee that while other countries were astonished at the scale to which Britons were snooped on by the authorities, the evidence suggested CCTV had little impact on levels of late-night violence.

He also admitted the public had been "misled" into believing that installing camera systems would have a big impact on anti-social behaviour.

Around £200 million has been spent on erecting more than four million CCTV cameras across the country over the past 10 years, leading the Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, recently to talk about "Surveillance Britain".

Ministers have repeatedly stressed the benefits of CCTV on the grounds that they act as a deterrent.

But speaking to the Lords constitution committee, Mr Gerrard, deputy chief constable of the Cheshire constabulary, said: "Most of the pressure [for CCTV] comes from the public.

"Some of them may get disappointed when the CCTV goes in that actually... it doesn't deter most crime. I think they are perhaps misled in terms of the amount of crime that CCTV might prevent.

"Before CCTV can effectively deter people, they need to know the cameras are there. They have got to be thinking about the consequences of their behaviour.

"It is very effective in places like car parks, where offenders are going out to break into cars, and are thinking rationally. In terms of town centres, where a lot of the behaviour is violent behaviour, often fuelled by alcohol, people aren't thinking rationally. They get angry, the CCTV is the last thing they are thinking about.

"Even the presence of police officers doesn't deter the disorder on the street, so cameras are unlikely to deter them."

David Davis, the shadow home secretary, said the Government had undermined civil liberties for no apparent reason."


What a shock... This Labour government have messed so much up over the last nearly 11 years.

Surveillance society

I have blogged often about the way the UK is being turned into a surveillance society (sorry about the cliche, I normally avoid them like the plague) and Devils Kitchen has a nice article on this today, reporting on the 2007 Privacy International Report.


It is true that it is shameful that the UK comes into the worst category, that of "Endemic surveillance societies". However what is also interesting, and not commented upon, is that only 70 countries are reported upon. Take a look at what countries are not included in the survey and can you imagine what their status would be?

No countries in Africa other than South Africa and no countries in the Middle East other than Israel are reported upon - both of these countries fall into the "Systematic failure to uphold safeguards" category (two better than the UK). I wonder how Zimbabwe or Sudan or Nigeria would fare in Africa and how Syria or Saudi Arabia or Egypt would fare in the Middle East. Only India appears in the Indian sub-continent, I wonder how Pakistan or Bangladesh would fare. Much of the countries in the far east are included but I wonder how Indonesia would fare. Only Argentina and Brazil are included in South America. No countries in Central America and the Caribbean are included, I wonder how Cuba would fare...

So by all means berate the UL for its appalling record, in a category along with the US, Thailand, Taiwan, Singapore, Russia, China and Malaysia but do also wonder who would be in our group as well if more countries were graded.

Interestingly Greece comes out as the best ranked country, the only one to make the category "Adequate safeguards against abuse".

The UK is criticised for:

World leading surveillance schemes

Lack of accountability and data breach disclosure law

Commissioner has few powers

Interception of communications is authorised by politician, evidence not used in court, and oversight is by commissioner who reports only once a year upon reviewing a subset of applications

Hundreds of thousands of requests from government agencies to telecommunications providers for traffic data

Data retention scheme took a significant step forward with the quiet changes based on EU law

Plans are emerging regarding surveillance of communications networks for the protection of copyrighted content

Despite data breaches, 'joined-up government' initiatives continue

Identity scheme still planned to be the most invasive in the world, highly centralised and biometrics-driven; plan to issue all foreigners with cards in 2008 are continuing

E-borders plans include increased data collection on travellers


England & Wales alone for:

Inherited constitutional and statutory protections from UK Government and many of the policies

National policies are not judged, e.g. Communications surveillance, border and trans-border issues

Councils continue to spread surveillance policies, including RFID, CCTV, ID and data sharing, road user tracking

Few democratic safeguards at local government level, even though local government may be more accountable to electorate because of smaller numbers, decisions do not appear to be informed by research, prototyping


Scotland alone for:

Inherited constitutional and statutory protections from UK Government and only some of the policies

National policies are not judged, e.g. Communications surveillance, border and trans-border issues

Stronger protections on civil liberties

DNA database is not as open to abuse as policy in England and Wales

Identity policy is showing possibility of avoiding mistakes of UK Government

Scottish government appears more responsive and open to informed debate than local governments in England



I see that the EU is included this year, I wonder when all the EU countries appear under the heading of EU with just their small remaining variances from the EU norm listed?


Here are some extracts from the "Summary of key findings"

The 2007 rankings indicate an overall worsening of privacy protection across the world, reflecting an increase in surveillance and a declining performance of privacy safeguards.

Countries have moved swiftly to implement database, identity and fingerprinting systems, often without regard to the privacy implications for their own citizens

The 2007 rankings show an increasing trend amongst governments to archive data on the geographic, communications and financial records of all their citizens and residents. This trend leads to the conclusion that all citizens, regardless of legal status, are under suspicion.

The privacy trends have been fueled by the emergence of a profitable surveillance industry dominated by global IT companies and the creation of numerous international treaties that frequently operate outside judicial or democratic processes.

Surveillance initiatives initiated by Brussels have caused a substantial decline in privacy across Europe, eroding protections even in those countries that have shown a traditionally high regard for privacy.

The privacy performance of older democracies in Europe is generally failing, while the performance of newer democracies is becoming generally stronger.

In terms of statutory protections and privacy enforcement, the US is the worst ranking country in the democratic world. In terms of overall privacy protection the United States has performed very poorly, being out-ranked by both India and the Philippines and falling into the "black" category, denoting endemic surveillance.

The worst ranking EU country is the United Kingdom, which again fell into the "black" category along with Russia and Singapore. However for the first time Scotland has been given its own ranking score and performed significantly better than England & Wales.


All very interesting but as I say the absence of the countries not ranked is almost as intriguing.


Thanks to Devils Kitchen for reporting on the article on Samizdata that referred to the article on Andrew Sullivan that looked to the article on wired.com etc. etc. etc.

Speed cameras - The lies revealed

I have blogged about the lies told about speed cameras by this government and its associated "policy think tanks" but yesterday's Daily Telegraph had a very interesting article that brings a lot of the FACTS together. Please take a read of the whole of this article it is worth it. Here are some key quotes:
"A DfT strategy paper claimed speed was "a major contributory factor in about a third of all road accidents". The "excessive and inappropriate speed" that helped "to kill about 1,200 people" each year was "far more than any other single contributor to casualties on our roads". The source given for this claim, to be repeated as a mantra by ministers and officials for years to come, was a report from the government's Transport Research Laboratory, TRL Report 323: "A new system for recording contributory factors in road accidents". Not many people would have looked at this report, since it was only available for £45. But some who did were amazed. The evidence the report had cited to support its claim that speed was "a major contributory factor in about a third of all road accidents" simply wasn't there. Many other factors were named as contributing to road accidents, from driving without due care and attention to the influence of drink; from poor overtaking to nodding off at the wheel. But the figure given for accidents in which the main causative factor was "excessive speed" was way down the list, at only 7.3 per cent."

"TRL's own report. Not only did it cite excessive speed as the "definite"' cause in only 4.5 per cent of accidents, but it found that speed was a "probable" or "possible contributory factor" in only 8.2 per cent more. Not only was the government thus bending the truth; it had brought pressure on the TRL to give a wholly misleading picture of its own findings. The more the government's case was examined, the more statistically dubious it became. So determined was it to claim that speed was the chief cause of accidents, it would stop at nothing in misrepresenting the evidence."

"Even more simplistically, the government also seemed to be defining "excessive speed" much too narrowly, only in terms of exceeding a speed limit. In fact its own figures showed that only 30 per cent of accidents attributed to "excessive speed" actually involved breaking a speed limit. The vast majority, 70 per cent, involved vehicles travelling within the limit."

"In 2003, to justify its "safety camera" policy, the government produced a report purporting to show that, where cameras had been installed, the accident rate had been reduced by "35 per cent". But again it was manipulating the figures. Several significant confounding factors had been left out of the calculations; not least the fact that, on many sites, cameras had been installed following an atypical blip in the accident rate. When the rate had fallen back to its previous average level (regression to the mean) this allowed the government to ascribe the reduction to a camera. So great now was the pressure on ministers, officials and the police to keep on repeating the two key official mantras - "a third of accidents are caused by speed" and "speed cameras reduce accidents by 35 per cent" - that few were prepared to challenge them. One exception was Paul Garvin, chief constable of Durham, who refused to install speed cameras, In an interview, Garvin explained why. He insisted that, while he believed strongly in "casualty reduction and trying to make the roads safer", he could not agree that curbing speed was the central answer. The statistics for Durham showed that, of 1,900 collisions each year, only three per cent involved cars that were exceeding the speed limit, just 60 accidents a year. Look more closely at the causes of these 60 accidents, the "actual cause of the accident invariably is drink-driving or drug-driving". Drug-taking was now involved in 40 per cent of Durham's fatal road accidents. Many accidents, he said, were caused by fatigue, although one of the most common causes was the failure of drivers to watch out for oncoming vehicles when turning right. To none of these could speed cameras offer any remedy. "The cause of accidents," Garvin concluded, "is clearly something different from exceeding the speed limit"."

The TRL had found that, where fixed cameras were installed at road works, the risk of accidents giving rise to injury was increased by 55 per cent. Where fixed cameras were installed on open motorways the risk was increased by 31 per cent. In general, fatal and serious crashes were 32 per cent more likely where cameras were being operated. But conventional police patrols reduced the risk of crashes by 27 per cent at road works, and 10 per cent elsewhere. The report bore out precisely the case Smith had been making. But the DfT had ruled that it was not to be published. If a copy had not been passed to Smith, to be reported on the Safe Speed website, it might never have seen the light of day."

"In the summer of 2006, the DfT itself published a paper noting the curious discrepancy between the road-accident figures as reported by the police and those shown by the records of NHS hospitals. While the police were claiming that the yearly number of people killed or seriously injured had dropped since the mid-1990s by 33 per cent, the hospitals gave a very different picture. According to the police, the total number of emergency hospital admissions following traffic accidents in 1994/95 was 38,641, which by 2002/03 had dropped to 31,010. According to the NHS, however, the respective figures were 32,285 and 36,611."

"In September 2006, the DfT finally conceded one of the central points that Safe Speed's Paul Smith had been arguing for five years: that only five per cent of road accidents were caused by drivers who were breaking the speed limit. In The Daily Telegraph, Smith was quoted as saying "the government's case for continuing to install cameras has been destroyed"."

Surveillance

Read this from Samizdata about "How total surveillance works and does not work". Most interesting and along the same line of thought as I have been having.

Civil Liberties take another step backwards

It would appear from this Daily Mail article that the Police "want to take DNA samples, fingerprints and even imprints of footwear for all offences" this will include from speeding motorists, motorists stopped for not wearing a seatbelt, someone dropping an apple core and so on and so on. This is another example of Big Brother Britain, this Government will not be happy until we are all on their National Identity Register along with a DNA sample and preferably micro-chipped as well. The Government must be able to track our movements at all times via the microchip and watch us at all times via CCTV; maybe a two way TV in each room would be an idea, now what made me think of that?