Randomly Selected Article or Link

Apparently the Data Protection Act turned ten years old on Wednesday, according to El Reg. But you'd be forgiven for thinking it never existed, or has been repealed, given all the recent stories of data loss by, of all organizations, the government, and the newer suggestions that all our DNA, phone and internet communications records, should be in a database, forever, and instantly accessible to any accredited official (I won't say "qualified" because I suspect they won't be) with an easily contrived excuse.

Fortunately, the Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, stands between the state and its ambition to know everything there is to know about its citizens and what they do, consume, learn and who they associate with. But with such a lax attitude to their own obligations under their own Data Protection laws somehow I doubt Mr Thomas will be heard, let alone listened to.

My attachment to a few home comforts prevents me from becoming a survivalist type, and I am too much of a coward to be a martyr. But I do seriously consider at times whether there is a way to opt out of this inexorable creep of the surveillance state. Emigration? Where would be any better though I wonder? Switzerland maybe, but I doubt they'd have me.

And I just do not understand why so many people, it seems from my view anyway, are able passively to accept this state encroachment into our lives. I know plenty who do not even see it going on. Why on earth is it any more acceptable say, for the state to know about all your telephone calls or emails than it would be, say, to open every posted letter somewhere in the postal system, or, creepier still, have someone follow you so they can check out who you talk to in the street or who you visit? I'm sure there have been times when this ability is exactly the reason why the Royal Mail existed - for intelligence purposes - and with a monopoly too, mind you, though in the popular conscience the Royal Mail, USPS and other national mail services are actually supposed to be trusted guarantors that nobody should tinker with private correspondence with impunity.

Of course, such surveillance of physical media communications or personal movements would be impractical on a mass scale whereas electronic communications tend to leave tracks for all sorts of (usually business) reasons. But "just because we can", just because massive scale monitoring is now feasible and manageable with electronic communications does not mean we should. I have a contract with a phone company, and the data even they keep should be limited to as little, and for as short a time as necessary, as needed to deliver me the service they promised. And indeed, that is core to the principles behind the Data Protection Act.

No doubt they will all say that you can breach those principles "in the national interest" or whatever. But at the very worst, such a situation should be the exception and not the rule, and should be subject at all times to proof of probable cause via judicial oversight. After all, the "national interest" could, and usually will be, what the government of the day decide it is if it is left up to them and their agents. I always have a rueful smile when I recall that for years each part of your annual tax return would be dealt with by a different Inland Revenue clerk so that no one government official would actually know what you earned in total. Can we ever hope to resurrect such a level of government respect for our privacy?

I'm not sure I believe any longer that grand government database and surveillance projects do originate in a genuine desire to do something good. I just think it is an innate trait of government and power to want to have as much information about those over whom they wield power or those on whom they are dependent for power as they possibly can. Acton's dictum is writ large in the creep of the surveillance state: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Information brings, and sustains power.

I linked to this post at the Libertarian Party blog the other day, but if you didn't read it then, please go have a look now. It's a light-hearted look at the inconveniences that could beset the most minor activities in your daily lives if all these supposedly beneficial systems actually come to pass. Forget that "if you've nothing to hide" crap, I challenge anyone to say they would not be severely pissed off with this level of "helpful" surveillance.

Yet all of this need not be the end game, just as I am sure today there are thousands of people trying to find new ways of evading the Chinese national firewall, or make a few phone calls without being billed for them, people will continue to develop ways of keeping one step ahead of the voracious information state. Ultimately, I don't believe that the state can win against the advance of the technology. But there is a danger, if we do not start constitutionally protecting our privacy now, that the state will keep trying on any pretext they can muster, and turn truly tyrannical in their desire to control information flows.

I believe Michael Brown, the now infamous "largest Lib Dem donor ever", is every bit the "muppet" he called the party apparatchiks, and would personally not hopefully have accepted that money had I been in a position to do so. But if I had to choose between someone who may have swindled a small number of millionnaires out of some of their probably not all ethically gained loot and a Cameron donor accused of 'repugnant' business practices, I would choose Robin Hood over reputedly Rach rentier anyday.

I mean really, how could we even dream that the party of the landlord was changing its spots? Prove us wrong please, G&D! You could start by adopting Land Value Tax to prove your donors don't have policy influence...☺

Mind you, I am led to believe that some of Oxford's supposedly ghastlier rentier landlords are regular donors to the local Labour party so maybe making money out of the misery of the poor and the generosity of the taxpayer in supporting them does not indicate party alignment these days.

Technorati Tags: conservatives, lib dems, sleaze, tories

See, it's still one rule for them and another for the rest of us...

In order to try to get extra work out of our squaddies we send to fight and die on our behalf, defense contractor Quinetiq has been testing "zombies" for use in combat situations...

UK army tested 'stay awake' pills:

A controversial drug which can keep people awake for days has been tested by the UK military, MPs have been told.

Modafinil pills - known on the drugs scene as "zombies" - are used to treat the rare sleeping disorder narcolepsy.

The Ministry of Defence has previously denied testing the drug on troops although it reportedly bought thousands of pills ahead of the Iraq war.

Defence contractor Qinetiq told the commons' science committee the drug had recently been tested for military use.

So we have American pilots downing speed so they can fly further and kill Canadians and now this. Who took the major shareholding in Quinetiq when our government flogged off the Defense Establishment Research Agency? Carlyle Group. European Chairman at the time...Rt Hon John Major.

After Eggwina you'd have thought Mogadon was more likely his drug of choice though, wouldn't you.

Not surprisingly there's a reasonably well informed debate going on on Starkey's Last Word with Howard Marks on the show, Fraser Nelson from the Spectator - "I'm normally of a libertarian leaning but..." (you either are or you aren't IMHO) - has brought up some hackneyed cliches -

The illicit drugs market is not like the smuggling of tobacco:

He was worried that if you made drugs legal and controlled you would still have a huge amount of black market product like the fact that one in four packets of cigarettes are smuggled. The point is is that for the main part the smuggled tobacco products are legally produced and controlled, they're just avoiding the tax on them. If you could buy quality controlled Heroin from Beyer (who hold the trademark on the name incidentally) in small measured doses quality controlled and as "safe" as can be made, why would you ever go back to buying the Vim (sorry, Cif) cut crap sold out of the back of white BMWs? Even if you did have smuggled stuff to get round any tax measures imposed by government, it would be of the same quality as the legally sold and taxed stuff or they would not be able to sell it.

They've tried legalization in Alaska/Netherlands/Switzerland/wherever and it didn't work:

Erm, no, they didn't. They made possession and use a lesser or no offense, but acting alone in the world they could not get into the supply side and start controlling the quality and availability of supply. They practiced "tolerance" rather than full blown legalization with all the structures of the market opened up. It still did not make it socially acceptable to be a drug user and seek help for it when you needed it.

We're an island, it ought to be easy to cut off the supply:

Wrong. Especially with "harder" drugs. Such is the technology available to concentrate and then dilute drugs, especially heroin, that you can fit enough to supply an addict for a whole month under a postage stamp. How on earth are we supposed to police that? You don't have to ship it around in multi-billion dollar bundles on board someone's Falmouth registered yacht. The more we clamp down the more people work on the concentration technologies and the only thing that is likely to result is that people who don't know how to dilute properly will die.