We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
It is a little known fact but Britain is a world-leader in the manufacture and distribution of paranoia. We even export it.
For most of the time our public officials are hard at work busily churning out the stuff for both the domestic and foreign markets. But, what happens when one health-panic runs headlong into another? Well, the whole machine just grinds to an embarrassing halt:
A council has forbidden pupils to apply sunscreen in school – in case other children suffer an allergic reaction.
Cancer Research UK, which launched the Sun Smart campaign to warn of the dangers of the sun, said it was “amazed” by the policy.
Manchester City Council says it is following health and safety guidelines.
Pity the poor child, stuck out on a limb, while two different nannies squawk at them with two entirely conflicting demands. Maybe the nannies could solve the problem (and do everyone a real favour) by just dropping dead from worry.
I have ‘acquired’ a British army ‘source’ currently stationed in Basra. I decided to share some of the information on the blog as it comes from a rather different perspective than media reporting. It may not be as topical or ‘political’ as the headline news but I hope you will find it interesting:
This is my first letter from lovely Basra, city of a thousand exotic smells. I’m actually really enjoying myself so far. This country is seriously bizarre. Take the kids. Up to the age of five they are so cute it’s unreal. Every one of them could star in an Oxfam advert. They all look pretty, they all have huge grins, and they all seem really pleased to see us. “Hey meester! Hello meester!” And yet they are living, literally, in shit. In the poor areas the streets run with sewage. Saddam never bothered to put in a sewage system for these areas – or rather he didn’t maintain the one the British put in. I have never been so grateful for a poor sense of smell.
Most of the people are really friendly. True, in the poor areas the kids throw bricks at us when we are in vehicles, but that’s just their idea of fun(!) It’s really fun driving around the city at night or in the evening, standing up in the back of a Landrover with the hot air blowing past as you cruise around. Mind you, you have to be careful because the Iraqis drive like madmen. I think maybe the Americans in Baghdad have confused normal Iraqi driving with suicide bombing tactics. They just cut up everyone, driving is based on aggression, and they drive both ways on either side of the road. They just take the shortest route between two points regardless of what is in the way, so it’s not surprising that virutally every vehicle has a broken windscreen and looks like a junkyard refugee.
The only exception to the bad driving is when our armoured vehicles are on the road. Those they treat with respect. But Landrovers they now cut up like anything else. We are trying to get the traffic cops back to work, but they’re frightened to come back, and they aren’t generally much use when they do.
But patrolling around the streets is fascinating. It’s just really interesting to see a completely different culture, a totally different way of life. And it’s far more interesting than Northern Ireland, because here we can really do stuff. If we think a house had weapons in it, we can just go in and search. The other day, on a tip off, we collected an RPG launcher. The follow on search found a load of mortar bombs. And that’s just routine here.
Otherwise I have been in my office stuffing my head full of information on SADR, SCIRI, INC, INA, Imams, tribes, crime gangs, politicians and every other madman around here. They all seemed to be called some combination of Ahmed Mohammed Al Unpronouncable. Arabic names will be the death of me, not least because they have about nine different spellings. But I’m getting there – I know far more about the politics of Basra than any sane man would ever want to. In another letter, I’ll tell you about WMD sites and arresting looters.
Barely a working day goes by when I don’t read some nauseating editorial in some left-of-centre organ warning of the ‘dangers’ of becoming more like America and demanding even greater integration into Europe.
Europe, you see, is more attuned to concepts of ‘social justice’ and therefore kindler, gentler and more humane. A place where those vulgar ‘market forces’ are tamed and brought under ‘democratic control’. Yes, Europe is an altogether more civilised model of society.
Except that I think we now have pretty incontrovertible proof that the European ‘model’ is actually a long, drawn-out extinction event:
Fertility rates across Europe are now so low that the continent’s population is likely to drop markedly over the next 50 years. The UN, whose past population predictions have been fairly accurate, predicts that the world’s population will increase from just over 6 billion in 2000 to 8.9 billion by 2050. During the same period, however, the population of the 27 countries that should be members of the EU by 2007 is predicted to fall by 6%, from 482m to 454m. For countries with particularly low fertility rates, the decline is dramatic. By 2050 the number of Italians may have fallen from 57.5m in 2000 to around 45m; Spain’s population may droop from 40m to 37m. Germany, which currently has a population of around 80m, could find itself with just 25m inhabitants by the end of this century, according to recent projections by Deutsche Bank, which adds: “Even assuming (no doubt unrealistically high) annual immigration of 250,000, Germany’s population would decline to about 50m by 2100.”
This is what happens when children are taxed out of the family budget. And it gets worse:
A recent report from the French Institute of International Relations predicts that, by the middle of the century, the EU’s GDP will be growing at just over 1% a year compared with more than 2% in North America and at least 2.5% in China. The EU, the report gloomily concludes, faces a “slow but inexorable ‘exit from history’ “.
I really do recommend that the whole article be read in order to fully appreciate that Europe’s political classes are standing hip-deep in merde. Nor are there any easy solutions to which they can turn. Radical reforms are politically impossible and even cranking up the immigration rates by several orders is not going to save them. If the host population is dying out then the newcomers are not so much ‘immigrants’ as replacements; the demographic equivalent of a blood transfusion. Out with the old and in the with new. Still, there is a possibility that the ‘new’ Europeans might have taken on board the object lesson and realised that socialism is suicide. Perhaps that is the solution after all.
So Europe will probably try to muddle through its demographic problem. There will be some pension reform, a bit more immigration, more family-friendly policies, higher taxes, growing fiscal problems for many governments and slower economic growth. With luck the European Union will avoid or postpone a really huge economic crisis. But the political and economic renaissance of Europe that was predicted at the European convention is likely to be stillborn.
Yes it really was as recent as a few months back that my ears were assailed with all those triumphal, confident proclamations that a ‘United Europe’ was soon going to overtake the USA as an economic power. I laughed my arse off. Now I almost pity them.
The future is not bright. They don’t need shades.
You know its something of a rum-do when you see an arch-capitalist like me denouncing a proposed privatisation:
The national DNA database containing more than two million samples could end up in the private sector under Government plans to sell off the Home Office Forensic Science Service (FSS).
And denounce it I most certainly do though I am obliged to add the important qualification that this is not really a ‘privatisation’ it is just a state licensing operation. The company that ends up running the database will have its ‘stock’ provided for it by the government who will also be its only (or most valuable) customer.
Still that won’t stop the owners and shareholders of the company from lobbying the government to extend police powers to extract DNA samples from anyone unfortunate enough to cross their path (and probably even those who do not).
It also raises the infuriating possibility of the police not just demanding a DNA sample from you but subsequently charging you £40 for the privilege of taking it.
This is one of those stories that Richard Littlejohn would classify under “You Couldn’t Make It Up”. I’m sure White Rose will have more to say about it than this one posting. For now I hardly have time to do more than flag it up before going to bed.
The national DNA database containing more than two million samples could end up in the private sector under Government plans to sell off the Home Office Forensic Science Service (FSS).
This is toxic. You gather information about people without any consent (because being arrested isn’t that kind of deal) and then you turn the management of the resulting database into a business. Objections? Where do you start? How long do we have?
Call this whatever other names you want, but don’t you dare call it “pure” capitalism, or the “extreme” free market.
Last night, the proposed sale threatened to become the most controversial since the privatisation of the air traffic control system.
I’ll say.
White Rose seems to have missed this (from the BBC on Wednesday):
A group of peace protesters has launched legal proceedings against Gloucestershire police, claiming they used anti-terrorism laws to prevent demonstrations against the war in Iraq.
The complaints centre on RAF Fairford, where American B-52 bombers were based during the conflict.
None of the protesters who demonstrated at the airbase were charged with terrorism offences but they say their human rights were breached.
The pressure group Liberty is calling for an inquiry into the use of section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 at the base.
Officers were granted powers under the legislation to stop and search vehicles and pedestrians in the area near the base between 7 March and 27 April.
But they were obviously all really dangerous people, yes? Absolutely.
One of the people the group says was stopped under the Terrorism act was 11-year-old Isabelle Ellis-Cockcroft, whose father David Cockcroft is taking legal action claiming a breach of human rights.
Isabelle told the BBC: “We were just walking along the road and they stopped us. I did not have a full body search because there was no woman officer there.
“They asked what was in our pockets, wrote down our descriptions and checked a backpack and a bike we had with us.
“They said they were stopping us under the Terrorism Act, but I’m not a terrorist.”
I guess you just can’t be too careful.
Don’t get me wrong. I personally don’t care at all for peaceniks, and I especially dislike them when they have hyphenated surnames. Isabelle Ellis-Cockcroft should be swooning over plasticated pop musicians in preparation for doing It-Girl Studies at Roedean, not demo-ing outside an airbase.
But I will defend the right of hyphenated peaceniks to demonstrate without being arrested as terrorists to the point of putting up a posting about it on White Rose.
Thanks to Chris R. Tame and the Libertarian Alliance Forum for flagging up the story.
“I think we were bamboozled by the Prime Minister into doing the right thing.”
– Michael Portillo on This Week, BBC1, small hours of today
This New York Times story is worth a look. It deals with activities of something called the Temporary State Commission on Lobbying, who have been, so the New York Civil Liberties Union says, overdoing it in their investigation of those wanting to soften the state’s current drug laws.
In a letter sent today to the Temporary State Commission on Lobbying, the civil liberties group said the commission had been overly aggressive in its inquiry into the activists’ public rallies and broadcasts. It called them core First Amendment activities that were not subject to lobbying regulation.
In addition, civil liberties officials said the commission had been confrontational in its inquiry and needed to distinguish between the scrutiny of citizens who came forward to speak their minds and paid, professional lobbyists, or those who spent at least $2,000 to directly communicate with legislators.
Yes, well, they pass a law, and then distinctions of that sort – which were, you know, merely intended, but not actually spelt out in the law – have a way of getting lost.
I wonder what “Temporary” means in this connection.
Following the recent diplomatic spat between Italy and Germany, the EU Commission has moved to ensure that there is no repetition of such unfortunate incidents with a ‘Draft Directive on Cross-Border Insults’.
The new directive sets out a regulatory framework which will, in future, require all citizens of all EU countries to follow appropriate guidelines before publicly uttering any sort of cross-border insult.
The guidelines provide:
- Any insult which includes reference to national stereotypes can only be directed against a person or persons who is/are permanently domiciled in or citizens of the country to which the said stereotype is applicable. Insults may not be directed at persons who are merely resident in such countries.
- Insults which include reference to multiple stereoptypes such as ‘Arrogant beachtowel-hogging Schnitzel-brained Kraut metalbasher’ and ‘Pizza-munching dago wop greaseball monkey’ shall first obtain a written approval to utter the insult from the appropriate licensing body in the jurisdiction in which the insulter is a citizen or permanently domiciled.
- For the purposes of enforcement of these provisions, each member state of the Union shall establish an appropriate licensing body.
- In the case of a person wishing to utter a cross-border insult for reproduction in any print or electronic medium they must first provide a draft copy of the proposed insult to the proprietors of the said medium not less than three days before publication of the insult is due. This is to ensure that fair representations can be made by the person or organisation against whom the insult is directed.
- In the case of general insults or non-national stereotype abuse, the words used by the insulter must be words or terms that are recognised as being of an abusive or insulting nature in at least one or more Union member state. The use of Americanised insults such as ‘dickwad’, ‘dog-breath’, ‘asshat’ and ‘freakazoid’ are strictly forbidden as being inconsistent with European cultural values.
- Once a cross-border insult has been uttered (in accordance with these provisions) the person or organisaton against whom the insult was directed shall have a right of reply. In order to permit such right to be exercised the insulter shall allow a period of at least seven days before uttering any further insults.
French EU Commissioner Bertrand Maginot expressed his satisfaction with the new rules:
“We cannot simply allow insults to be traded in this uncontrolled cowboy fashion. If they are not subject to proper democratic control they could disrupt the harmony of European institutions.”
Critics of the new rules say they do not go far enough as insults that remain within national borders are still totally unregulated. However, a Commission sub-committee is expected to convene early next year to examine methods of regulating domestic insults as well.
Bruce Schneier is an expert on technical aspects of electronic security. His book Applied Cryptography is considered the “bible” for people implementing cryptography based security, privacy, and authentication systems.
Having written this book in 1995, the subtext of which was that technical solutions could solve many or all of our privacy and security issues, Schneier slowly became more and more conscious of the fact that the weaknesses in security or privacy systems were the result of human rather than technology failure. It wasn’t so much the systems themselves as the way the systems were used and relied upon that determined the quality of security and privacy. In particular, blind faith in technology was extremely dangerous, both in terms of making people overconfident that systems would always work correctly, and in terms of adding additional layers of unnecessary inflexibility and bureacracy. Schneier then wrote another book Secrets and Lies: Digital Security in a Networked World discussing essentially how security systems should be established so as to be actually secure. Probably the most important point was that human systems have to be flexible and intelligent. Simply requiring ID of everybody is not especially useful without human beings constantly asking the question of why ID is being asked for. Plus this type of system is predictable, and holes in it are easily found. And it needlessly invades people’s privacy.
In any event, Mr Schneier writes a monthly newsletter discussing these types of issues, which is at least partly aimed at publicising his consultancy business. This month’s issue has some very interesting thoughts on just how we should deal with organisations – government and non government – that needlessly invade our privacy for asking for identification and recording excessive information about their customers. An extract
I had to travel to Japan last year, and found a company that rented local cell phones to travelers. The form required either a Social Security number or a passport number. When I asked the clerk why, he said the absence of either sent up red flags. I asked how he could tell a real-looking fake number from an actual number. He said that if I didn’t care to provide the number as requested, I could rent my cell phone elsewhere, and hung up on me. I went through another company to rent, but it turned out that they contracted through this same company, and the man declined to deal with me, even at a remove. I eventually got the cell phone by going back to the first company and giving a different name (my wife’s), a different credit card, and a made-up passport number. Honor satisfied all around, I guess.
It’s stupid security season. If you’ve flown on an airplane, entered a government building, or done any one of dozens of other things, you’ve encountered security systems that are invasive, counterproductive, egregious, or just plain annoying. You’ve met people — guards, officials, minimum-wage workers — who blindly force you to follow the most inane security rules imaginable.
Is there anything you can do?
In the end, all security is a negotiation among affected players: governments, industries, companies, organizations, individuals, etc. The players get to decide what security they want, and what they’re willing to trade off in order to get it. But it sometimes seems that we as individuals are not part of that negotiation. Security is more something that is done to us.
Our security largely depends on the actions of others and the environment we’re in. For example, the tamper resistance of food packaging depends more on government packaging regulations than on our purchasing choices. The security of a letter mailed to a friend depends more on the ethics of the workers who handle it than on the brand of envelope we choose to use. How safe an airplane is from being blown up has little to do with our actions at the airport and while on the plane. (Shoe-bomber Richard Reid provided the rare exception to this.) The security of the money in our bank accounts, the crime rate in our neighborhoods, and the honesty and integrity of our police departments are out of our direct control. We simply don’t have enough power in the negotiations to make a difference.
…
It would be different if the pharmacist were the owner of the pharmacy, or if the person behind the registration desk owned the hotel. Or even if the policeman were a neighborhood beat cop. In those cases, there’s more parity. I can negotiate my security, and he can decide whether or not to modify the rules for me. But modern society is more often faceless corporations and mindless governments. It’s implemented by people and machines that have enormous power, but only power to implement what they’re told to implement. And they have no real interest in negotiating. They don’t need to. They don’t care.
But there’s a paradox. We’re not only individuals; we’re also consumers, citizens, taxpayers, voters, and — if things get bad enough — protestors and sometimes even angry mobs. Only in the aggregate do we have power, and the more we organize, the more power we have.
The whole thing is well worth reading, as are the back issues of the newsletter.
I had a bit of trouble to renew my passport before leaving to Britain – which won’t come as a surprise for anybody used to deal with the uncivil servants of the French social-mediocracy – mainly related to “processing time”, and that’s not a surprise either.
Requesting a 35 hours work week from the French functionaires would actually result in increasing their effective work time.
No, the coffee machine meetings don’t count as effective work time, sorry.
Anyway, during this painful and costly process to ensure I would be dully registered and filled as a dependency of the French Republic, I was repeatedly offered to give up on the passport – “It’s not mandatory for a trip to Britain you know. It’s Europe! You just need an ID card.” Yep, it’s Europe, for sure – and switch to the new National and Unfalsifiable ID Card, Wonder of the French Technology and Guarantor of our Nation’s Security.
I was presented, by several obliging agents of the State, with it’s unsurpassable pluses and benefits, comparing to this lousy old passport I inconsiderately wanted to renew: the New National ID card is not only national and somewhat new, but also unfalsifiable and I would be generously granted this little wonder after a fast and simple procedure – basically “Give us a picture, tell us who you are, sign here and, oh, don’t forget to give us your fingerprints thank you” – and last but not least – drum rolls please – absolutely free.
Yes, free.
Knowing the rapacity of the French state as soon as there is a way to rip off money from the taxpayer, that and that only is highly suspect.
Not considering the fact that, just like the French pension by repartition system, the national ID card was established by the Vichy government during the obviously not so distant past of collaboration with National-Socialist Germany.
At one point, and considering that unlike the aforementioned obliging agents of the State, you have other things to do than marvel about the control apparatus of the State, you end up thinking: “All right, time to make us another enemy”.
Excerpt of the conversation:
the dissident frogman:
“Hello, I want to renew my passport.”
Obliging Agent of the State:
“Well Monsieur that will be long and costly you know.”
the dissident frogman:
“How long? How expensive?”
Obliging Agent of the State:
“Well Monsieur that can be up to one month, sometimes more. It will cost you 60 Euros and is valid 5 years.”
the dissident frogman:
“Oh. Bugger.”
Obliging Agent of the State:
“Yes Monsieur. Monsieur should apply for a National ID card, it’s unfalsifiable and valid 10 years.”
the dissident frogman:
“Nope. Don’t care.”
Obliging Agent of the State:
“Well Monsieur unlike the passport, it’s free!”
the dissident frogman:
” ‘Course. So was the one way ticket Drancy-Auschwitz 60 years ago.”
Now let me fill in that passport renewal form, thank you.
While we’re at it, I hope that you’ll notice, like I do, the fact that among the proposed choices within an imposed principle (since the law makes an obligation for you to prove your identity in many daily situations), the most dangerous system for individual liberties is also the one that’s free and therefore the only one “financially” accessible by the poorest.
Just make your own conclusions out of this, the next time you’ll hear the French social-mediocrats of all tendencies becoming ecstatic about their “Social Justice” paradigm French style, and boast its superiority.
There’s a lot of cameras in London. I do mean a lot, despite Orwell (so to speak) and this, of course, brings the legitimate concern that was already summarized in the ancient Rome: quis custodiet ipses custodies?
There’s no National ID card in Britain nowadays, even if the Socialists are seriously working on it – Yep, I’m not surprised either.
But there are also and hopefully, individuals working against them.
Eventually, judging by Britain’s century old constitutional stability as opposed to the numerous bloodbath that mark out France’s history, I’d serenely trade the Vichy inspired national ID card for the London camera and the opportunity to side with those who work on resolving the overseers’ watch issue.
Anytime.
Cross-posted from the dissident frogman
Privacy conscious operators now use shredders. So welcome to the world of the unshredder.
As Instapundit often says, the New York Times may be a bit bonkers at the front, but the science and technology coverage can be excellent.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
