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]
|
Another article in The Times on ID and the ID Bill that will give officers right to scan eyes. The Home Secretary’s long-awaited draft Bill on ID cards, published today, will attempt to reassure civil liberties opponents by confirming that it will not be obligatory to carry the card even if, as expected, the scheme becomes compulsory in the next decade.
But police will be able to take biometric data from suspects on the spot if they are not in possession of their card. Officers would then be able to check the national database to find out who the suspect is.
Remember Minority Report?
The Times reports that David Blunkett will today publish his draft Bill on identity cards. Tim Hames writes:
Unless obliged to do so for professional reasons, I have no intention of reading it. He can appear in as many radio and television studios as he likes, talking about the virtues of his blueprint, but I will not listen to him. I neither desire nor need to know about the provisions of his forthcoming pilot scheme either. I am against it.
Not just a little bit against it, either. I am eye-swivellingly, limb-twitchingly, mouth-foamingly hostile to the enterprise. And, as will become starkly obvious, pretty unpersuadable to boot.
That works for us… We also like his summing up of the arguments against ID cards in Britain that he finds compelling:
It seems to me that there are three basic arguments against introducing ID cards in Britain which are so compelling that they should immediately end any discussion on the subject. These are “whose body is it anyway?”, “why should I have to?” and “it’s not British”.
The “whose body is it anyway?” thesis is in many ways the simplest. The cards are not the problem with this proposal, it is the implications they have for identity. The State exists because we individuals choose to permit it to exist, not the other way round. I might volunteer data to the authorities but bureaucrats and politicians are not entitled to obtain access to my personal details.
I am against ID cards for the same reason that I am vociferously opposed to the idea, put about by the donor card lobby, that parts of me should be whipped away on death unless I opt out of their beloved programme. It is my identity and I have every intention of keeping it.
The “why should I have to?” assertion is no less powerful. ID cards are, in theory, a weapon in the War on Terror. Now I am well aware that a small set of fruitcakes out there have convinced themselves that if they blow me up while I travel on the Central Line into work, then they will secure some kind of “Get Into Heaven, Free” pass. I think we should be draconian with them.
Let Mr Blunkett’s men follow them around, tap their telephone calls, lock them up without charge and throw away the key (although, admittedly, al-Qaeda’s de facto allies in the legal fraternity may well release them).
I personally couldn’t agree more with his cry:
Forget the Magna Carta when it comes to Osama bin Laden and his lackeys. I do not, though, see why the existence of these fanatics should compel me to carry, and at all times, a piece of plastic, possibly containing a photograph, which, if the mug shot accompanying this column is any indication, is hardly destined to be flattering. There must be a better way of dealing with terrorism.
Can anyone spot which continental country he means?
Finally, the real clincher, “it’s not British”. ID cards occur in dubious continental countries whose constitutions keep collapsing, which have been democracies for about 20 minutes and where the policemen wear funny-shaped hats and carry firearms. They do not happen here.
And a rousing finale:
So my sincere advice to the Home Secretary, who in most regards is a quite splendid chap, is to abandon this legislation. If you cannot move me on this matter, a person who is otherwise a model of moderation, pragmatism and sanity, then your chances of convincing an utterly unreasonable bunch of headcases such as the House of Lords that this is a decent idea are minimal.
Furthermore, do not take at face value opinion polls which imply that 80 per cent of the electorate favour ID cards. What they mean is that eight out of ten voters believe that other people should have to suffer the inconvenience of carting them around. As far as I am concerned, the letters ID stand for the place that this draft Bill should be directed. In the Dustbin.
Hear, hear.
Thanks to Alex Singleton for the link.
The Guardian reports that thousands of Muslim women will be exempted from having to show their faces on identity cards as the Government moves to allay fears among British Muslims that the new cards will be used to target them in the ‘war on terror’.
As David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, faced attack for not allowing enough debate over the introduction of the first ID cards in Britain since the Second World War, officials made it clear that if Muslim women do not want to reveal their faces in public, that would be respected. Instead of a photograph, there would be an exemption for certain people, who would only have to give fingerprint and iris-recognition data.
How about wearing a veil and refusing to be taken a photo on ‘religious grounds’. It may be worth a try…
Here’s one I almost missed:
CCTV footage sought for TV show
According to The Publican, Sky are seeking pub landlords who can provide them with “dramatic or funny” CCTV footage. Faces of those “not involved in the incident” will, of course, be blurred out.
Which implies that faces of those who are involved will be visible. Maybe acceptable if the footage shows a crime – but what if it’s just “funny”?
I don’t know about you but I reckon my friends would recognise me even with a blurry face (situation normal?).
My Mum definitely would.
As if to address Trevor’s post from Tuesday, QinetiQ gives evidence to Home Affairs Select Committee on ‘ID cards’ promising that cards which hold information confirming an individual’s identity, could be produced for far less than £30. Neil Fisher, QinetiQ’s director of security solutions, who gave evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee today, outlined the potential ‘benefits’ of an appropriate biometric identity authentication system – one that incorporates a unique physical signature such as facial recognition.
Encapsulating individuals’ biometrics in one or more authentication devices will ensure that their identity cannot be stolen and that they can prove, swiftly and simply, that they are who they say they are. In today’s digital age, this will give them secure access to a huge range of services. Additionally, if a portable data storage device like a barcode is used, it can link people irrefutably to their possessions – to their luggage at an airport, to their cars, and even to their baby in a maternity ward.
Absolutely, just moving the cattle, move along, nothing to see here. But why do I have to prove, ‘swiftly and simply, that I am who I say I am? Missing the point here, Mr Fisher…
We automatically assume that the so-called smart chips, which are relatively expensive, will be used in identity authentication devices such as ID cards. But by using current technologies like 2D barcodes or memory sticks, which cost from fractions of a penny to less than £1 to produce, it is possible to develop low-cost data storage devices without compromising on security.
Yes, tag them all and keep the change. For you, Mr. Big Blunkett, only £5 a piece.
Note: Thanks to Malvern Gazette reporter for alerting us to the story.
Most Americans do not care about exposing themselves to massive data surveillance but they should, says George Washington University law professor and New Republic legal affairs editor Jeffrey Rosen in his new book, “The Naked Crowd.” Rosen discussed technology and the uneasy balance between security and privacy on April 20 at 2 p.m. on washingtonpost.com.
Jeffrey Rosen: The book is a response to a challenge by my friend and teacher Lawrence Lessig, who writes about cyberspace. We were on a panel about liberty and security after 9/11, and I denounced the British surveillance cameras, which I had just written about for the New York Times magazine, as a feel good technology that violated privacy without increasing security. Lessig politely but firmly called me a Luddite. These technologies will proliferate whether you like it or not, he said, and you should learn enough about them to be able to describe how they can be designed in ways that protect privacy rather than threatening it. I took Lessig’s challenge seriously, and spent a year learning about the technologies and describing the legal and architectural choices they pose. The rest of the book followed naturally, and it’s an attempt to think through the behavior of the relevant actors who will decide whether good or bad technologies are adopted — that is, the public, the executive, the courts, and the Congress.
The Home office has admitted that it has no idea how much innocent citizens will be charged for being forced to have an Identity Card.
At Lord’s Question’s today, Home Office Minister Baroness Scotland of Asthal was asked to confirm the current estimate of £70 per person (already almost twice the figure that was being talked about a year ago). She refused to do so, saying that the Government would not be able to assess the costs until the compulsory phase begins.
So every single person in the country is effectively being told to write the Government a blank cheque.
The predicted cost has already almost doubled within a year. Given the Government record on IT projects, how much higher will it go?
Full report in the Scotsman.
Cross-posted from The Chestnut Tree Cafe
… and will soon be invisible. Anyone who bases their arguments about the dangers of camera surveillance on the primitiveness of current technology is, unlike the latest cameras, being very short sighted. Take a look, for example, at this:
It sounds like the speeder’s nightmare. A speed camera accurate up to 150mph which can be concealed in road studs as small as a cat’s eye indicator, and which can also – as you’re passing – cast a glance at your tyres to see if they’re a bit bald.
And at you, to see who you are and where you are, and what you’re up to. If not yet, then very soon.
Wake up: this camera exists, and it’s being trialled.
I’m awake already.
But the anti-camera lobby can rest easy for a while. The Department for Transport says that there is no way that these cameras, designed and made by a British company called Astucia, will ever be used for “enforcement” to level fines and penalty points. However, they will start being tested around the country later this year, as part of the wider efforts to encourage motorists to respect speed limits.
So, they will not (yet) do “enforcement”, not “for a while”. But they can already do “encourage”. Sounds like enforcement will be with us very soon.
The Australian government has long desired to force ISP’s and Internet content Hosts to take responsibility for the activities of their clients. An attempt to do this in 1999 was defeated, but the authorites are back for more.
The draft bill states that ISPs are required to determine whether their services are used for “illegal conduct or speech.”
Paragraph 152 of the Explanatory Notes to the draft bill says that “Possible action that could be taken by ISPs and Internet Content Hosts (ICHs) so as not to facilitate use of a carriage service by another person that breaches proposed subsection 474.16(1) includes an ISP ceasing to provide Internet services to that person or an ICH ceasing to host a particular Website containing content that breaches the proposed offence.”
Obviously, the implication is clear- should this measure get up, ISP’s will be legally required to be much more aggressive in their surveillance of their customers; a gross breach of their privacy.
(Via Whirlpool.net.au)
Via b3ta.com, I came across a nice piece of White Rose Relevant graphics, here.
Since I don’t know what the policy is here about pictures, and in any case do not have picture posting privileges, but since b3ta.com is such a Niagara of pictorial diversions, here today and gone tomorrow, I nailed down the relevant image here, amidst appropriately educational commentary.
“Money grabbing gits!” is what b3ta said. Would that our money was the only thing in danger here.
From the BBC last Friday:
Nearly 200 people have been wrongly accused by the Criminal Records Bureau of having criminal records.
The names of 193 people were mistakenly linked with convictions held on the police national computer (PNC), BBC Radio Five Live has learned.
In some cases the names of those being vetted by the bureau were similar or identical to those of actual criminals.
In others, the criminals had given someone else’s personal details to the authorities to avoid a police record.
The Criminal Records Bureau, which came into operation in March 2002, does background checks on those who work with children or vulnerable people.
They made this number of mistakes (that they already know of) in the criminal record list, which is only a minority of the population. How many would they make if the list contained, or was supposed to contain, everybody?
What is scary about this kind of thing is when the information-that-isn’t starts to really get around, into several different data bases at once. At that point it becomes extremely hard to eradicate. Something like a false reading on sexual perversion (which is what these background checks for working with children and vulberable people are all about) is liable to spring to life again after previously having been eradicated, supposedly. After all, you can’t be too careful, can you?
Wired has a follow-up reporting on the controversy surrounding the airline companies hand-over passanger data to government contractors (TSA)designing and testing CAPPSII in 2002.
Two senators on Wednesday asked the Transportation Security Administration whether the agency violated federal rules by helping its contractors acquire passenger data, and why the agency told government investigators it didn’t have such data.
The senators also pressed the TSA for an explanation of why it hadn’t revealed the transfer of millions of passenger records to government contractors. Senate members had asked TSA officials directly whether they had done so, but the answer was no.
Two TSA agency spokesmen also denied to Wired News that any data transfer had taken place, saying that the project did not need data at the time.
But this week, American Airlines became the third airline to reveal that it turned over millions of passenger records to the government without informing the passengers. JetBlue and Northwest Airlines had earlier revealed that they too had transferred passenger records to government contractors. For the past eight months, TSA officials and spokesmen have repeatedly denied that any data transfer occurred. Two senators, Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Joe Lieberman (D-Connecticut) wrote:
We are concerned by potential Privacy Act and other implications of this reported incident. Moreover, TSA told the press, the General Accounting Office and Congress that it had not used any real-world data to test CAPPS II.
American Airlines has now indicated that it provided over 1 million passenger itineraries at TSA’s request, which raises the question of why agency officials told GAO that it did not have access to such data.
And there was much fudging as you can read in the article…
|
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.
|
