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]
|
During my recent travels in the US, I encountered many a ‘security’ measure at various airports. By the end of my stay and a fair number of flights, these were beginning to really get on my nerves. I am not singling the US as the only security-mad country, although it seems that something certainly got out of hand there. The airport searches are interminable – going through metal detectors that seem to have the highest sensitive settings was most annoying as my travel companion is one of those people who will fail to fish out the last quarter from their pockets or forget to take off his watch/belt/keys. (By the way a dime in my pocket did go through just fine…)
Another inexplicable measure is the never-ending checks of one’s boarding pass. After the full check-in with bells and whistles on – passports and security questions, our boarding documents were checked no less then five times before we finally settled down in our seats. Most of them happened within three yards of each other.
My harping on about this may be a bit off the point especially as I was not subjected to anything as drastic as overzealous security personnel and most people seem to accept the ordeals. The flights were uneventful and most likely not delayed by the searches and checks and screenings. What is most frustrating is the fact that none of those measures are effective or make much sense. They certainly are not efficient, spawning a huge mass of regulation, petty rules and turning customers into a fair game for any hung-up, power-crazed ‘little official’. While they may provide an effective therapy to thousands of sufferers of inferiority complex and to the ordinary people who would otherwise never have ‘tasted power’, the costs, born by the airlines i.e. their customers, act as a throttle on the demand for air travel.
It is a sad ocurrance that airports, the hubs of modern travel and civilisation, have become Kafkaesque worlds where bureaucracy has been allowed to run amok. To be fair, there are other places and institutions that manage similar achievements as the winners of Privacy International Stupid Security Contest testify.
Guardian reports that the prime minister declared today that the only obstacles to a UK identity card were “cost and efficiency” and that arguments about civil liberties were outdated.
I think these arguments have gone far beyond the old civil liberty arguments about it and are really to do now with cost and efficacy. Can you get a cost-effective programme that is actually effective? That does what you think it is going to do.
Now that is where the debate is centred and I have an open mind on that but in principle I think it is right. It is not something I think that is considered completely noxious to do.
Guardian reports that Tony Blair’s hopes of winning cabinet support for identity cards have been dealt a further blow after Alistair Darling, the transport secretary, submitted a five-page cabinet letter opposing their introduction. Mr Darling is the fourth cabinet member to challenge the home secretary David Blunkett’s goal of introducing a bill in the Queen’s speech.
He points out that passports and driving licences are already due to be upgraded using biometric technology. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency is establishing links with the passport service database to enable electronic validation of identity information. Passports are due to include embedded biometric information from 2005.
According to those who have seen his letter, Mr Darling claims an ID card would only add value if citizens were required to carry it – something the government has ruled out.
STL today.com reports that Charter Communications Inc., third largest cable provider in the United States, filed a suit on Friday seeking to block the recording industry from obtaining the identities of Charter customers who allegedly shared copyrighted music over the Internet. Charter filed papers in U.S. District Court in St. Louis in a bid to quash subpoenas that the Recording Industry Association of America issued seeking the identities of about 150 Charter customers.
“We are the only major cable company that has not as yet provided the RIAA a single datum of information,” said Tom Hearity, vice president and associate general counsel for Charter.
Via Slashdot
Computerworld reports that despite the government’s recent efforts to integrate dozens of terrorist watch list databases, terrorists may still be slipping through major cracks in homeland defenses by stealing identities and using computers to create fraudulent travel documents.
Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-District of Columbia), a self-proclaimed “card-carrying civil libertarian,” said the nature of the vulnerabilities has led her and others to rethink the issue of national ID cards.
However, Keith Kiser, chairman of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, said a national ID card is not needed and would probably require additional IT infrastructure currently not in place. Instead, Kiser argued that the IT infrastructure used throughout state motor vehicle departments to verify identities and issue valid driver’s licenses should be enhanced and standardized.
Lawmakers and federal homeland security experts argued in favor of wider deployment of biometric technologies and standardization of driver’s licenses throughout the country. Currently, 21 states don’t require proof of legal residence to get a driver’s license. In addition, there are 240 variations of driver’s licenses used throughout the 50 states. California and New Mexico also issue valid driver’s licenses to noncitizens, and Arizona is debating the issue. Chairman of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, Keith Kiser, said:
I don’t disagree that a biometric identifier is a great place to be and we should be trying to get there. But we [conducted] a two-year study of biometrics and our conclusion at this point is that although biometrics work great on a one-to-one match, it’s awfully hard to find a technology that works on a one-to-300 million match, which is what we really need to [have] to have an effective biometric identifier.
For those who find Mondays blue and tired and for those who might be inspired to a change of career… Ladies and gentlemen I give you:
Dissect a frog online!
Via Monkeyfarts
Note: Any resemblence to characters real or imagined is purely coincidental and the editorial team of Samizdata.net shall not be held responsible for any dissections of the insinuated individual.
Telegraph reports that Gordon Brown and Jack Straw are leading a rearguard action to block David Blunkett’s plans for national identity cards despite Tony Blair’s backing for the scheme.
Mr Blunkett wants a compulsory scheme and has proposed that those who do not qualify for the card will not be able to work legally or get access to health care, education and public services. But so far he has failed to get Cabinet backing. Cabinet sources say a “fierce battle” is being waged with Mr Brown and Mr Straw expressing the strongest doubts.
The Chancellor has said that the Treasury will not meet the cost of issuing the cards, which are expected to cost individuals up to £40. Several other ministers, including Charles Clarke, Education Secretary, Peter Hain, Leader of the Commons, and Patricia Hewitt, Trade and Industry Secretary, have voiced reservations about the cards
Telegraph opinion section had a good editorial on identity cards last week.
Having failed to win the argument during its six-month consultation period on what it then called “entitlement cards”, the Government now seems determined to press ahead with a national, compulsory ID card scheme. This has been a most peculiar exercise in policy presentation, perhaps because the Cabinet is divided and because opinion polls suggest several million people would defy the law by refusing to apply for one.
It draw attention to the fact that the government seems unable to make up its mind precisely what these cards will actually achieve.
It is important to be clear what Mr Blair is proposing: every person in the land will be required to pay £40, give over an image of his or her iris, and have private information stored on a central database. This is an uncomfortable thought in itself. To suggest that this is all about protecting civil liberties is simply insulting.
The Scotsman reports:
They have been carrying these cards for more than a month now, unaware they are the guinea pigs for a national scheme which has raised the spectre of the introduction of Orwellian-style identity checks.
But there are fears among teenagers in Aberdeen that their personal details could fall into the wrong hands, and that the trial is designed to soften them up to the idea of carrying one of the cards for life.
Andy Ronnie, one of the coordinators of the scheme at Aberdeen City Council, has sought to reassure teenagers, denying claims that the scheme is part of an ID card plan.
While these cards could be used as an identifier, they are not ID cards. Whatever an ID card will be like, it will not be these cards. They have not been designed as ID cards, but as cards to access services.
Also, they are not compulsory. People who do not want to use them are still able to access services in other ways – we have made sure of that.
The scheme has split the local council amid worries over civil liberties. Liberal Democrat councillor Millicent McLeod, said:
There is the concern that we could be verging on invading people’s privacy by putting too much information on display.
However, Labour councillor George Urquhart said:
The Accord scheme seems to be going OK. To be honest, there has been surprisingly little reaction in the local community. Personally, I have nothing against identification cards – I think they are a good thing, especially in the current climate of terrorist threats. Ordinary people young or old have nothing to fear from ID cards.
And what if you are not ‘ordinary’?
The third post by Our Man in Basra about his observations from both Iraq and the West, to which he has now returned.
I have noticed that most Westerners tend to form one of two opinions about the situation in Iraq and about what we should be doing. One opinion is what I would call Idealistic. Iraqis are human beings just like us and so deserve democracy and freedom just like us. Therefore we should give them these things, as soon as possible. This viewpoint seems to be held by Americans who do not work with actual Iraqis, and by many libertarians.
The second opinion, which I shall call Realistic, is that the Iraqis are fundamentally different people to us. They have a different culture, a different religion, are basically untrustworthy, and uncivilised. They like stealing from and killing each other. They need a brutally authoritarian regime to keep them in order, and basically we are wasting our time trying to teach them anything else. This point of view tends to be held by those who deal with Iraqis day-to-day and is most acutely felt by ex-Idealistic Americans who simply cannot understand people who, instead of repairing their country, trash it.
The problem with the Idealistic theory is that Iraqis have been traumatised by thirty five years of brutal kleptocracy. They have no experience or understanding of what democracy, or even freedom, actually mean. For example, the end of Saddam’s rule in Basra was taken by most Basrans to mean the end of traffic rules as well, so they now drive like suicide bombers.
This is similar to what occurred in Central Europe after communism. Most people had little understanding of what a free market meant. They tended to think that capitalism meant a free license to rip off your customers. They also expected that the coming of freedom would mean instant wealth like in the West. They took a while to realise that it meant the freedom to build yourself wealth like in the West. The same is true, but twenty times more, in Iraq. At least the Central Europeans had a past history of civil freedom, and neighbours to learn from. None of this is true for the Iraqis.
The Realistic viewpoint, on the other hand, is intrinsically, if unconsciously, racist. There are objective differences between Iraqis and Westerners due to Islamic faith and tribal traditions. But these are not genetically encoded and impossible to change. In fact there are aspects of both Islam and of tribal traditions that are perfectly compatible with democracy and freedom. And indeed, the argument that Iraqis are lazy and stupid simply does not reflect the facts to be seen on the streets of Basra. You can see Iraqis driving cars that are little more than steering wheel, engine and a few road tires, but they keep them moving. They may be destroying their own infrastructure, but they show incredible determination and inventiveness while doing so.
What astounds me about both viewpoints, which are held by many intelligent people, is how absurdly simplistic they are. Iraqis are for the most part rational people, whose behaviour can be rationally explained. They react rationally to the environment they are in, which includes their experience under Saddam and their fear of his return. It may not make sense to give them complete democracy and freedom immediately and this point was made to me often by Iraqis, who insist that we should not try to govern Iraq with Western laws. They keep saying that Iraqis are different and need a strong fist.
But to suggest that Iraqis cannot learn to operate in a free and capitalist society is absurd. The problem here is the time scale. Neither viewpoint seems to take account of what of the blindingly obvious – you cannot rebuild the entire Iraqi society in a matter of months. The war ended at the end of May and we have only had four months so far. The reconstruction of Germany after World War II took about a decade.
Having been in Basra for some months, I am convinced, as are most Iraqis, that it will be a rich and prosperous city somewhere around five to ten years from now. As long as Iraqis have security from Ba’athists and from the neighbouring states, they will achieve this themselves. But with the French manoeuvring to give the UN political primacy in Iraq, the question is not: will Iraq be rebuilt, but who will get the credit?
I think our attitude toward America should change … we have a chance, in America, to be the moral leadership of America. The problem is when? It will happen, it will happen [Allah willing], I have no doubt in my mind, Muslims sooner or later will be the moral leadership of America. It depends on me and you, either we do it now or we do it after a hundred years, but this country will become a Muslim country. And I [think] if we are outside this country we can say ‘Oh, Allah destroy America,’ but once we are here, our mission in this country is to change it.
– Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi, a prominent American Muslim leader
Statewatch reports that the European Commission has produced two draft Regulations (25.9.03) to introduce two sets of biometric data (fingerprints and facial image) on visas and resident permits for third country nationals by 2005. The biometric data and personal details on visas will be stored on national and EU-wide databases and be accessible through the Visa Information System (VIS) held on the Schengen Information System (SIS II).
Another proposal for the inclusion of biometrics and personal data: “in relation to documents of EU citizens, will follow later this year”.
Statewatch summarises the proposals:
- biometric documents for visas and resident third country nationals to be introduced by 2005
- biometric passports/documents for EU citizens to follow
- “compulsory” fingerprints and facial images
- data and personal information to be held on national and EU-wide databases
- admission that powers of data protection authorities cannot cope
- no guarantees that data will not be made available to non-EU states (eg: USA)
Tony Bunyan, Statewatch editor, comments:
These proposals are yet another result of the “war on terrorism” which show that the EU is just as keen as the USA to introduce systems of mass surveillance which have much more to do with political and social control than fighting terrorism.
|
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.
|
