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]
|
ComputerWorld reports on the U.K. government set to consider legislation next year for the establishment of compulsory biometric identity cards and a central database of all U.K. subjects.
The information that the government is considering for inclusion on the card includes personal details such as a person’s home address and telephone number, his National Insurance number (the equivalent of the U.S. Social Security number), medical information and criminal convictions, as well as the biometric information, most likely in the form of an iris, fingerprint or palm print scan.
The ID cards would be rolled out in two stages, beginning with the biometric identifiers being included on renewed and newly issued passports and driver’s licenses. Also as part of the first phase, once the national database was available, the government would issue identity cards to European Union and foreign nationals seeking to remain in the U.K., and would also offer an optional card for those who do not have a passport or driver’s license. As part of the second phase of the program, to be implemented five years after its launch, the national ID card would become compulsory.
The government estimates that residents will be charged about $41 for the card and that setting up the basic system will cost taxpayers $215 million, and up to $3.59 billion to fully implement.
In a speech to the House of Commons on Nov. 11, Blunkett asserted that the development of technology that recognizes specific personal identifiers, or biometrics, “would mean that identity could not be forged or duplicated.” But the government’s own feasibility study on the use of biometrics issued in February said such methods “do not offer 100% certainty of authentication of individuals” and went on to warn that the “practicalities of deploying either iris or fingerprint recognition in such a scheme are far from straightforward.”
Bart Vansevenant, director of security strategy at Ubizen NV, said his company sees no real value for adding biometrics to ID cards, especially since it wouldn’t stop terrorism or fraud. Ubizen has been working on Belgium’s electronic ID card scheme, the first in Europe to move beyond the pilot stage, according to Vansevenant. The Belgian ID cards, which should be fully rolled out in three to four years, use digital certificate technology, which is cheaper and more reliable than biometrics, Vansevenant said.
There is no reason that is good enough to explain the use of biometrics. It is still a very immature technology, plus you have the additional costs of equipment, support and administration problems… Vansevenant also expressed serious doubts about the security of a national database. It is a pretty bad idea, especially the database, which would be an ideal target for hackers and terrorists.
Perhaps the U.K. and the U.S. [which is proposing the use of biometric data on U.S. passports] are using biometrics and related databases from a marketing point of view and trying to position it as the big solution to the problem of terrorism. But even then, it’s still a bad idea.
Quite.
Gordon Brown is facing voter unrest according to a poll that suggested Middle Britain has grown weary of tax rises and no longer believes higher spending can deliver improved public services.
The ICM survey carried out for the think-tank Reform found that 82 per cent believe services have not improved despite tax rises. Nearly as many – 78 per cent – think they need reform not extra money. Worryingly for Mr Brown, the poll found strong support for the principle of lower taxes, even among Labour voters, nearly three-quarters of whom believe British competitiveness depends on keeping taxes low.
For those who think that the Tory party will now ‘get off the fence’ and trumpet their low-tax message to the world, there is some bad news. As their tiny derranged statist minds catch a whiff of power, the Tories get cold feet on their tax-cut promise (well, more like mumbling).
Despite behind-the-scenes pressure from colleagues, Mr Howard has signalled his determination to move away from Iain Duncan Smith’s talk of tax cuts amid fears they would be difficult to deliver.
Oliver Letwin, the new shadow chancellor, warned at the weekend that such a pledge would be “irresponsible” and even hinted that an incoming Tory government could face “transitional costs” to implement its manifesto that would push up public spending.
‘Irresponsible’ and ‘transitional cost’, oh yes. Bigger government anyone? It woudl be fair to say that Samizdata.net position is that the folks who see the ‘resurgent’ Tory party as ‘just the ticket’ to rescue us from Tony Blair not just wrong but deluded.
A project to create a comprehensive graphical representation of the internet in just one day and using only a single computer has already produced some eye-catching images. The Opte Project uses a networking program called “traceroute”. This records the network addresses that a data packet hops between as it travels towards a particular network host. The project is free and represents a lot of donated time.
Click for larger image and enjoy
via Network Edge
Arnold Kling of the Bottom Line (one of the Corante blogs) has blogged about an email exchange with one of the ‘intellectuals’ over at Crooked Timber. He suggested that they actually read one of his essays before denouncing them as illegitimate. The reply he received was incredible. I suppose that is how liberals argue…
Arthur Kling (AK): Thanks for the comment. I am in favor of providing health care subsidies for the poor. What I object to is the notion that a middle class that supposedly cannot afford to pay for health insurance on its own can somehow magically tax itself to pay for health insurance.
Crooked Timber ‘intellectual’ (CTI): Tax the upper class. Why don’t they figure into your calculations? Are your usual readers stupid enough to be swayed by such foolishness? Do you really think “big government liberals” believe what you claim they do? (I suspect that you do: your imagined opponents are all idiots who can’t appreciate your impeccable logic.)
How about establishing a government health insurance system to eliminate the 30% overhead that “entrepreneurs” typically extract? Despite libertarian cant about government inefficiency, government insurance programs get by with less than 3% administrative costs. Seems that might make health care a bit more affordable. (I know that fact will be hard to accept, since it contradicts the dogma you adhere to, but it’s a hard world.)
AK: Sorry that the point was unclear.
CTI: It was indeed. Are you sure the obfuscation was unintended?
AK: Thanks for taking the time to read the essay.
CTI: You’re welcome. Wish I felt it had been better spent.
There is more rudeness, arrogance and supercilious invectives. Judge for yourselves.
Greg Dyke, the BBC director general, attacked American reporting of the war in Iraq and derided news organisations that were prepared to bang the drum for one side or the other. Mr Dyke, who was speaking after collecting an honorary award at the International Emmys in New York on Monday night, said the Iraq coverage illustrated the difference between the BBC and US networks:
For any news organisation to act as a cheerleader for government is to undermine your credibility. They should be balancing their coverage, not banging the drum for one side or the other. If that were true in Britain, the BBC would have failed in its duty.
He cited research showing that of 840 experts interviewed on US news outlets during the war only four opposed the conflict.
Yes, unlike the BBC that has accomplished what we would call a pervasive bias, an affliction where the reporters cannot even tell just how loudly they are banging the drum for one side. This is the news outlet that regarded the Iraqi Minister of Information a source on a par with the Command Centre. Oh, and whose reporters kept insisting that there are not US troops in Baghdad when the rest of the world were watching their tanks moving down the streets of central Baghdad.
I came across an interesting report by River Path Associates that looks at the BBC Reporters’ Log and examines evidence of bias in the BBC’s reporting during the Iraq conflict. They chose the Reporters’ Log since it is immediate and reflects assumptions of the reporters themselves. (I would argue that the more pronounced bias was at the editorial level, it was interesting that some reporters who posted to the Reporters’ Log complained that their raw reporting was given a rather different spin by editors in the UK.)
The report analyses all 1343 posts to the BBC Reporters’ Log. The majority of posts contained factual statements or accounts of reporters’ personal experiences. Others discussed strategy, Coalition and Iraqi claims, and the progress of the war. The authors focused on these latter posts, allocating them to 8 different categories:
- Praise for Coalition strategy
- Criticism of Coalition strategy
- Praise for Iraqi strategy
- Criticism of Iraqi strategy
- Coalition successes
- Coalition setbacks
- Scepticism over Coalition claims
- Scepticism over Iraqi claims
They concluded, among other things, that:
A quantitative analysis of entries in the Reporter’s Log indicates that most reports are factual in nature, and do not contain comment or speculation on the nature and progress of the war.
- Reports that do include comment and speculation, however, are likely to be critical of Coalition strategy and to report Coalition setbacks. Reporters are also more likely to be sceptical about Coalition claims than Iraqi claims. This provides some evidence of bias.
- It is notable that many of the more provocative reports are made by the BBC’s most high profile journalists, especially by those based in Baghdad. While most BBC journalists concentrate on objective factual reporting, others habitually adopt a more confrontational role. On occasion, this leads to exaggerated, speculative or incorrect stories, which seldom receive any correction.
- These findings call into question BBC attempts to try and originate more stories, in order to set the news agenda. Questions arise over whether the BBC can ‘create’ the news, while holding to the standards of impartiality and independence which its Director General sets for it.
There you have it. And for more juicy evidence there is, of course, Biased BBC, which, by the way, has also something to say about Mr. Dykes arrogant comments about the US media.
Wired reports that Congress delayed the planned takeoff of a controversial new airline passenger-profiling system until an independent study of its privacy implications and effectiveness at stopping terrorism can be completed.
A congressional conference committee, which was reconciling the Senate and House versions of the Department of Homeland Security’s budget for next year, opted to keep the Senate’s stronger language that prohibits deployment of the Transportation Security Administration’s CAPPS II program until the General Accounting Office certifies to Congress that the system will not finger too many innocent passengers.
The study will also check whether the system will effectively pinpoint terrorists, and whether an appeals system is in place for those delayed or prohibited from flying. CAPPS II is intended as a high-tech replacement for the current system, which simply checks passenger names against a list of suspected terrorists.
The new system will require passengers to provide airlines with additional information, which the agency will check against commercial databases and a watch list of suspected terrorists and people wanted for violent crimes. The system will then color-code each passenger, according to decisions made by the system’s pattern-matching algorithms.
An ideologically diverse coalition of civil-liberty advocates oppose the project, saying the system would be Big Brotheresque and ineffective.
This is far from won but at least it is a step in the right direction. Most likely the GAO study will be done, the boxes ticked and the next terrorist attack will result in yet another series of knee-jerk reactions from governments. But I would like to be proven wrong.
Guardian’s crime correspondent reports that scam-baiting – replying to the emails and stringing the con artists along with a view to humiliating them as much as possible – is becoming increasingly popular with more than 150 websites chronicling the often hilarious results.
Mike, a 41-year-old computer engineer from Manchester, runs the scam-baiting site 419eater.com, which started two months ago.
Almost always the scammer will think you are a real victim and try their best to extract money. It started because I used to get a few emails, and although I knew it was a scam I never knew how it worked. I did some research, found out about scam baiting and decided to have a go. It’s now almost a full-time hobby for me.
His site specialises in collecting pictures of the scammers in order to make it more difficult to find new victims. Using the pretext that in order to believe they are real people they need to take a photograph holding up signs with the name of Mike’s character, he has succeeded in getting one fraudster to pose with a piece of paper stating: MI Semen Stains. Other sites feature similar pictures with signs reading ‘Iama Dildo’, ‘Mr Bukakke’ and ‘Ben Dover’.
According to Guardian the oldest anti-scammer site is Scamorama, which aims to educate the public about the latest trends as well as waste as much of the fraudsters’ time as possible. The original emails often claim the author has suffered a personal tragedy, usually the loss of a parent. A typical Scamorama reply claimed the recipient has also lost a parent in shocking circumstances, having witnessed their own father being shot. The email was signed ‘Alfredo Corleone’.
I had a go at some of the stories on the 419 Eater website and I recommend you have a look too. Marvellous stuff. What a way to brighten up a dull morning.
Sunday Herald reports that UK wants similar powers to controversial US Patriot Act.
Sweeping new emergency legal powers to deal with the aftermath of a large terrorist attack in Britain are being considered by the government.
The measures could potentially outlaw participation in a protest march, such as last week’s demonstrations during President Bush’s state visit, making it, in effect, a criminal offence to criticise government policy.
In an attempt to give the UK government similar powers to those rushed through in the US after the 9/11 attack on New York in 2001, it is understood that a beefed-up version of current civil contingencies law is being considered. It will allow the government to bypass or suspend key parts of the UK’s human rights laws without the authority of parliament.
…
Aware of the current level of scare-mongering following the Istanbul bombing and the threats made by al-Qaeda-linked groups that further suicide attacks were being planned on targets both in the UK and abroad, a source close to the Home Secretary, David Blunkett, last night denied his department were seeking a massive and immediate injection of cash from the Treasury. This would be needed to foot the bill if Britain’s streets were to be flooded with armed police in an almost constant level of red alert.
Despite Blunkett saying he was “sick and tired” of people pretending there was not a threat from terrorists and insisting only “very, very good intelligence would save us”, the Home Office seems to have no plan to boost security spending this or next year.
If “Fortress Britain” were to be achieved, with countrywide security checks, increased police surveillance and widespread detention of any suspect group or individual, the Home Office’s annual budget would rocket.
Hm.
From an unlikely source comes this analysis of the US Patriot Act in the editorial column:
Explaining the reasons why the USA Patriot Act runs counter to the traditional American concept of liberty is a daunting task. Most people – including the members of Congress who voted for it – haven’t even read the Act in its entirety, if at all. Those are the uninformed. Then there are the misguided – those who are somewhat familiar with the legislation, but who accept it under the notion that some loss of freedom is inevitable if we’re to protect ourselves from the scourge of terrorists.
The article ends with a famous quote attributed to Rev. Martin Neimoller:
First, they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.
Read the whole thing. Simple and effective.
A small independent label in Great Britain, Loca Records, is reversing the traditional record industry business model. It is giving the rights to the artists – and anyone else who wants to use the music, too.
The idea is to foster experimentation and freedom in music by building a stable of free music which can be shared, remixed and manipulated by anyone. Songs are not locked by digital rights management technology.
Artists earn a percentage of any record sales; Loca Records makes its money through record sales, gigs it promotes and merchandise. David Berry, managing director of Loca Records and an artist himself, known as Meme says:
You’re free to copy it, give it to your friends and you can play it. If you’re really interested, you can sample it and then re-release it. Because at the end of the day, if you sample the work and create a fantastic remix, we think you’re entitled to try and make some money from it.
Loca Records licenses its music using Creative Commons and offers free copyright licenses to anyone who wants to share his work with the public while reserving some rights. Using these licenses, Loca Records permits anyone to copy and distribute the content, make derivative works and sell it, as long as they attribute the work to the original creator and distribute it under the same “share alike” license.
I do worry that copyright is getting out of control. This gives us an opportunity to create a new culture and a new sound. If we are greedy and we lock down our culture now, there will be nothing for the next generation.
Apparently, some artists at first do not know what to make of the new type of contract, but once they understand how it works, their response turns to positive.
There are others that are experimenting with new forms of music distribution and collaboration. Magnatune, an independent label in Berkeley, California, also offers music for download and sharing, and Opsound invites any musician to submit songs to its website, where others can listen, share and remix them. Both labels license the music using Creative Commons.
As David Kusek of the Berklee College of Music points out, historically, building upon one another’s music was common. Jazz, in particular, was based on improvisation, theme and variation and “who could outdo each other” with each interpretation of a piece.
It was the differences that were more interesting. We lost a lot of the spontaneity that was inherent in music when it became a package that could be stamped a million times and resold. The existing labels of the last 50 or 60 years have been all about controlling the expression, the packaging, the distribution and the scarcity of the music in order to turn a profit. That forced music to be defined as a product. It can be a product, but in its pure form it’s entertainment.
I am all in favour of new business model for the record industry. The reason for the falling profits is not just by-passing of copyright and licenses by their customers but ridiculous pricing and distribution of their product. Let’s hope artists take notice.
New Scientist has learned that the proposed system to introduce identity cards in the UK will do nothing to prevent fraudsters acquiring multiple identity cards.
Unveiling the proposals last week, the home secretary, David Blunkett, said they are necessary to prevent identity fraud. Every resident would have to carry an ID card containing biometric information, such as an iris scan. Cards could then be checked against a central database to confirm the holder’s identity.
But Simon Davies, an expert in information systems at the London School of Economics and director of Privacy International, says the system would not stop people getting extra cards under different names. If he is correct, it could have far-reaching implications.
The problem, says Davies, is the limited accuracy of biometric systems combined with the sheer number of people to be identified. The most optimistic claims for iris recognition systems are around 99 per cent accuracy – so for every 100 scans, there will be at least one false match.
Bill Perry, of the UK’s Association for Biometrics, agrees that there is an upper limit to the reliability of iris scans.
It’s not an exact science. People look at biometrics as being a total solution to all their problems, but it’s only part of the solution.
He added that using more than one biometric identifier – for example, iris scans and fingerprints together will also be considered. This would solve the accuracy problem, but vastly increase the cost.
Oh, jolly good. So scanned and finger-printed is the way to go…
Thanks to Groc’s Bloggette for the link.
Some ‘amazing’ news from Russia – President Vladimir Putin has met with the country’s richest business people and warned them that unless they share their wealth they risk losing it. He told them they must use their wealth to help reduce poverty, saying there is a line between wealth and political power. Seems like an offer they can’t refuse…
Sounds familiar? You bet. Putin used to be the head of KGB and I expect no less of him. His career since the fall of communism did nothing more than reinforce his old communist opinions and prejudices. It is possible that his ‘talking to’ to the 800 businesses could be, just could be, a very clever PR ruse to appeal to the Russian people who have to struggle to make the ends meet in a whole new and ‘free’ post-communist fashion whilst the nouveau rich flaunt their wealth. But I do not really think so. It is worse than that, he actually believes it. The few politicians from the former communist bloc who are perceived as ‘englightened’ by the West are more often then not paleo-communists whose rhetoric has turned communitarian, or outright anti-capitalist. This is what Putin told a packed Hall of Columns in the House of Unions that included at least five billionaires:
[Businesses] must aim their efforts at developing a system of new social guarantees for the population in line with the new demands of the time. [We must join] forces to make the lives of people economically sound so that they have plenty to live on.
Bye-bye the lip-service to individual property rights whilst economic future of Russia circles round the drain as her dozen billionaires and several thousand millionaires have begun the process of moving their money off shore. God speed, ‘comrades’.
I am sure that these ‘gentlemen’ are no lambs. In fact, I am certain that their money does not come from honest business. Most likely they grew obscenely rich on rigged privatisations – they happened to be at the right place, right time, with nastier thugs at their command. From what I have seen so far it seems to me that Mikhail Khodorkovsky might not of the same ilk but I do not know enough about him to stand by that conclusion.
Nevertheless, the way to tame the ‘oligarchs’, as they are affectionately known in Russia, is not making them hand-over their money. Just make them subject to the same laws as everyone else (I hope it is obvious that Yukos is not Russia’s Enron). That would, however, require strong institutions such as courts and legislature upholding laws in general and contracts between individuals in particular. This is profoundly lacking in Russia and elsewhere in Eastern Europe.
The Russian state machine is toxic. It may have divested itself of the evil ideology, but it continues to trample over the individual. Rights and justice are considered Western luxuries or, better yet, a clever propaganda by the Western politicians to mask the strings pulled by the military-industrial complexes. Tinfoil hat material? I do not think so – not enough tinfoil in Russia for the lot of them.
|
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.
|
