Linux User Too Suspicious To Be Ignored

Rather a weird tale from Boston, where a Computer Science student has had all of his computer kit seized (and pretty much everything else he owns) and has been suspended from his job for the heinous crime of understanding Linux. The University are alleging slightly more than *just* that, but they do seem suspicious of someone who can navigate their way round a non-Windows OS.

The EFF - who is representing him - has a copy of the warrant and says

"In his application, the investigating officer asked that he be permitted to seize the student's computers and other personal effects because they might yield evidence of the crimes of "Obtaining computer services by Fraud or Misrepresentation" and "Unauthorized access to a computer system."

Aside from the remarkable overreach by campus and state police in trying to paint a student as suspicious in part because he can navigate a non-Windows computer environment, nothing cited in the warrant application could possibly constitute the cited criminal offenses.

There are no assertions that a commercial (i.e. for pay) commercial service was defrauded, a necessary element of any "Obtaining computer services by Fraud or Misrepresentation" allegation. Similarly, the investigating officer doesn't explain how sending an e-mail to a campus mailing list might constitute "unauthorized access to a computer system."

The Slashdot post that brought this to my attention was tagged with "Idiocracy", which sums it all up rather nicely.

Anti-Terror Training Takes Three Hours (Including Coffee Break)

From SpyBlog comes an interesting (if you happen to be a paranoid geek like wot I am) analysis of the weekend's announcements from the Government.

Apparently - and I'm sure I can't imagine why - the UK is now at a severe risk of terrorist attack. So in order to stop these terrorists, "Tens of thousands of men and women throughout Britain - from security guards to store managers - have now been trained and equipped to deal with an incident and know what to watch for as people go about their daily business in crowded places such as stations, airports, shopping centres and sports grounds." That quote is from the Prime Mentalist himself writing in Sunday's Observer.

Jackboot Smith confirmed the Brown Gorgon's words on the BBC's Politics Show on Sunday, saying "What we're completely clear about is that if we're going to address the threat from terrorism, we need to do that alongside the 60,000 people that we're now training up to respond to a terrorist threat, in everywhere from our shopping centres to our hotels."

So, you may think that this training would be extremely detailed, involve long hours and probably some sort of exam at the end?

You would be, sadly, quite wrong.

"Project ARGUS is a National Counter Terrorism Security Office initiative, exploring ways to aid you in preventing, handling and recovering from a terrorist attack...

Project Argus is a free event which takes you through, using a multi-media simulation, a terrorist attack. A series of questions and challenges are put to you, both individually and as a group. You will work in small syndicate groups with other local business representatives and develop your responses to the attack. The whole event including a coffee break will last three hours."

Security theatre at its very best. Completely pointless, does more harm than good, and is likely to lead to huge numbers of innocent people being harassed by jumped up little jobsworths who think they're in MI5.

This Government is the reason we're at increased risk of terrorist attacks.

I am the Revolution, I am a terrorist, and I'm taking this fucking country back.

As It Keeps Disappearing

Philip Pullman's article on Civil Liberties in The Times seems to be flipping in and out of existence, so I have re-printed the whole thing here. It is relatively long, but it is worth reading.

Are such things done on Albion’s shore?

"The image of this nation that haunts me most powerfully is that of the sleeping giant Albion in William Blake’s prophetic books. Sleep, profound and inveterate slumber: that is the condition of Britain today.

We do not know what is happening to us. In the world outside, great events take place, great figures move and act, great matters unfold, and this nation of Albion murmurs and stirs while malevolent voices whisper in the darkness - the voices of the new laws that are silently strangling the old freedoms the nation still dreams it enjoys.

We are so fast asleep that we don’t know who we are any more. Are we English? Scottish? Welsh? British? More than one of them? One but not another? Are we a Christian nation - after all we have an Established Church - or are we something post-Christian? Are we a secular state? Are we a multifaith state? Are we anything we can all agree on and feel proud of?

The new laws whisper:

You don’t know who you are

You’re mistaken about yourself

We know better than you do what you consist of, what labels apply to you, which facts about you are important and which are worthless

We do not believe you can be trusted to know these things, so we shall know them for you

And if we take against you, we shall remove from your possession the only proof we shall allow to be recognised

The sleeping nation dreams it has the freedom to speak its mind. It fantasises about making tyrants cringe with the bluff bold vigour of its ancient right to express its opinions in the street. This is what the new laws say about that:

Expressing an opinion is a dangerous activity

Whatever your opinions are, we don’t want to hear them

So if you threaten us or our friends with your opinions we shall treat you like the rabble you are

And we do not want to hear you arguing about it

So hold your tongue and forget about protesting

What we want from you is acquiescence

The nation dreams it is a democratic state where the laws were made by freely elected representatives who were answerable to the people. It used to be such a nation once, it dreams, so it must be that nation still. It is a sweet dream.

You are not to be trusted with laws

So we shall put ourselves out of your reach

We shall put ourselves beyond your amendment or abolition

You do not need to argue about any changes we make, or to debate them, or to send your representatives to vote against them

You do not need to hold us to account

You think you will get what you want from an inquiry?

Who do you think you are?

What sort of fools do you think we are?

The nation’s dreams are troubled, sometimes; dim rumours reach our sleeping ears, rumours that all is not well in the administration of justice; but an ancient spell murmurs through our somnolence, and we remember that the courts are bound to seek the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and we turn over and sleep soundly again.

And the new laws whisper:

We do not want to hear you talking about truth

Truth is a friend of yours, not a friend of ours

We have a better friend called hearsay, who is a witness we can always rely on

We do not want to hear you talking about innocence

Innocent means guilty of things not yet done

We do not want to hear you talking about the right to silence

You need to be told what silence means: it means guilt

We do not want to hear you talking about justice

Justice is whatever we want to do to you

And nothing else

Are we conscious of being watched, as we sleep? Are we aware of an ever-open eye at the corner of every street, of a watching presence in the very keyboards we type our messages on? The new laws don’t mind if we are. They don’t think we care about it.

We want to watch you day and night

We think you are abject enough to feel safe when we watch you

We can see you have lost all sense of what is proper to a free people

We can see you have abandoned modesty

Some of our friends have seen to that

They have arranged for you to find modesty contemptible

In a thousand ways they have led you to think that whoever does not want to be watched must have something shameful to hide

We want you to feel that solitude is frightening and unnatural

We want you to feel that being watched is the natural state of things

One of the pleasant fantasies that consoles us in our sleep is that we are a sovereign nation, and safe within our borders. This is what the new laws say about that:

We know who our friends are

And when our friends want to have words with one of you

We shall make it easy for them to take you away to a country where you will learn that you have more fingernails than you need

It will be no use bleating that you know of no offence you have committed under British law

It is for us to know what your offence is

Angering our friends is an offence

It is inconceivable to me that a waking nation in the full consciousness of its freedom would have allowed its government to pass such laws as the Protection from Harassment Act (1997), the Crime and Disorder Act (1998), the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000), the Terrorism Act (2000), the Criminal Justice and Police Act (2001), the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act (2001), the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Extension Act (2002), the Criminal Justice Act (2003), the Extradition Act (2003), the Anti-Social Behaviour Act (2003), the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act (2004), the Civil Contingencies Act (2004), the Prevention of Terrorism Act (2005), the Inquiries Act (2005), the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (2005), not to mention a host of pending legislation such as the Identity Cards Bill, the Coroners and Justice Bill, and the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.

Inconceivable.

And those laws say:

Sleep, you stinking cowards

Sweating as you dream of rights and freedoms

Freedom is too hard for you

We shall decide what freedom is

Sleep, you vermin

Sleep, you scum"

This Should Cause You To Be Concerned.

As I think it's a very accurate comparison.


H/T to Guido

ID Cards, Every Little Helps

Rather interesting - if you happen to be a geek, like wot I am - news today on the introduction of ID Cards.

First up, the Government seem to have backed down a bit from their initial proposal to force all airside workers to have ID Cards. Well, Government issued ID Cards that is; they currently all do have ID Cards - issued to them by the airport after they've undergone a far stricter vetting process than the one the Government is proposing for the new shiny Government issued ID Cards. But I digress.

The Register is saying that the plans for ID cards for airport workers are in deep trouble, with the news that next year's rollout has been downscaled to an 18 month trial at only two airports, Manchester and City of London. According to a report in the Financial Times, the Home Secretary is due to announce the trial on Thursday but that no agreement has yet been reached on whether or not the trial would cover existing workers, or only new employees.

According to the FT, Manchester and London City only signed up to the scheme "in principle" after the government agreed to provide a further £500,000 for pre-employment checks for airport staff. Nor, says the paper, is there any guarantee that the scheme will be extended to the rest of the airline industry after the trial concludes. Opposition within the airline industry has been virtually unanimous, however, and the sudden appearance of a lengthy trial at two smaller airports - as opposed to a general rollout across the industry - suggests strongly that the Home Office is losing this fight.

The Home Office, however, denied the 18-month trial was a retreat on plans to issue all 200,000 airside workers with cards: "We made it clear when we published the Delivery Plan in March 2008 that ID cards for critical workers would be 'starting in the second half of 2009' and we are on track to meet this commitment," a Home Office spokesman said. No2ID have said it was a "transparent attempt to save ministerial face" after anger from airport unions and airline bosses.

The Unite union, which represents airport workers, has said staff are already extensively vetted before being given airside passes. Airport unions have been resisting the scheme, saying workers would have to pay £30 for a card to do their jobs. Airlines including British Airways, Virgin Atlantic and EasyJet, also spoke out against the plan, saying it was "unjustified" and would not improve security.

So the Government think it's a good idea, and everybody in the affected industry says it's a stupid and unnecessary idea which will do nothing to improve security.

You can see how this is going to end, can't you?

The Government will claim (but without giving any information as it would "undermine efforts by the security services") that a plot to smuggle a bomb/suicide bomber aboard a plane has been stopped and that they simply MUST improve security by introducing these passes. The airlines, unions and airports won't be able to complain - as there's no actual evidence - and the plans will be forced through.

Thinking about it, doesn't the timing of this story seem just a little suspicious? An MP walks through security at an airport carrying a large knife in her bag and no-one notices. So she reports it to the papers. Yet she's not arrested for carrying a knife? Or attempting to carry a knife onto a plane? Wouldn't things have been oh so different if a Muslim teenager had done exactly the same thing? I digress again, but my point is, that it seems kinda odd to me that this story comes out THE DAY BEFORE this announcement by Smith.

Smith has been busy though, sadly, as her stupid mind has also let her think that we would be far happier giving all our fingerprint details for ID Cards (the ones EVERYBODY will have to carry, not the Airside ones) to the supermarkets, rather than have to go to a special Government unit.

On plans to involve retailers and the Post Office in the ID cards scheme, a spokesman said it would be "more convenient" for people than the government's original plan to set up enrolment centres in large population centres.

The Identity and Passport Service (IPS) would continue to carry out enrolment at its offices but a spokesman said it also wanted to

"drive down costs using market forces and competition" and was talking to a "range of high street retailers and other organisations". He stressed that security of data would remain the "utmost priority". "Any third party involved in enrolment would be accredited and audited to ensure they meet and continue to meet robust and strictly administered security standards.

"System design standards will ensure that no data is stored locally and that all data is transmitted directly to IPS using a secure communications link. In addition all locations and personnel will be subject to strict security standards set by IPS."

Let's hope that their standards are a bit higher than everyone else in Government, and all the details won't be left on a USB key in a pub car park or on a train.

I - along with a few others - are wondering just which retailers would sign up to this scheme. There doesn't seem to be much incentive for doing so. Both the Tories and the LibDems have said that they would scrap the ID Card scheme, so any company making the necessary investment in the equipment are likely to discover it redundant after an election. Similarly, any retailer involved would surely be the subject of a campaign to stop people shopping there. In the current financial climate, that would surely put a damper on even the most enthusiastic company chairman (no doubt eyeing themselves a peerage).

Unless. Unless there's a HUGE incentive for a retailer to take part in this scheme. Like being the only official supplier of alcohol in the UK? Like being the only supermarket allowed to open 24 hours a day all week? Surely the lure of a peerage can't be enough to entice a major retailer into the moneypit with the Government.

UPDATE:

Just seen this on Guido and it made me howl. While giving a speech elsewhere today (hasn't she been busy, eh?) a No2ID sympathiser nicked the glass she'd been drinking from. Her fingerprints will be copied from it, and if there's any DNA on it, that too will be taken.

Not too secure with your data, are you love?

(deep breath)

A-hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Define Voluntary

Because if you were to, I doubt it would come out as anything like the definition being used by the Devon & Cornwall Police.

From LPUK a rather depressingly familiar tale of authoritarianism.

Well, in Redruth, Cornwall, 'voluntary' clearly has a new definition to the one I was brought up with. A report in yesterday's Times explains how 'voluntary' curfews are to be imposed on teenagers in the town, with all under 16s required to be off the streets by 9pm.

Police have written to local residents, asking for their co-operation in this 'voluntary' measure. Fair enough, you might think, but what will happen if they don't comply?

"Parents who do not agree to the scheme, and whose children are found out after 9pm, could be subject to parenting or antisocial behaviour orders."

So that would be 'voluntary' in the 'compulsory' sense then.

While I'm all for gangs of menacing teenagers being off the streets and being under the care of their parents or guardians, wouldn't it be more prudent to actually introduce more police? You know, doing what police are supposed to do and stop anti-social behaviour rather than clamping down on the law abiding majority?

This country is fucked.

Goodbye Freedom, Hello Gitmo

Gordon Brown will be pushing ahead today to inflict another blow on liberty. He plans to increase the amount of time someone can be held without trial to 42 days, from the already excessive 28 days it currently is. This measure is being introduced as part of the Counter-Terrorism Bill which does have some sensible parts, but could so easily see function shift - like the recent RIP Act abuses - into non-terrorist areas.

Britain already has one of the longest periods of detention without trial in the West. As you may be able to see from the picture below, Canada has one day, the US two, Russia five, France six, Ireland seven and Turkey seven and a half.


There are, as Liberty suggest, alternatives to extending the period.

Remove the bar on the use of intercept (phone tap) evidence because its inadmissibility is a major factor in being unable to bring charges in terror cases. Liberty welcomes the Government’s proposed Privy Council review into the use of this evidence in terror trials.

Allow post-charge questioning in terror cases, provided that the initial charge is legitimate and there is judicial oversight. This will allow for a charge to be replaced with a more appropriate offence at a later stage.

Hire more interpreters: Prioritise the hiring of more foreign language interpreters to expedite pre-charge questioning and other procedures.

Add resources: More resources for police and intelligence services.

Liberty has pointed out that emergency measures which exist under the Civil Contingencies Act (2004) would allow the government to temporarily extend pre-charge detention in a genuine emergency where the police are overwhelmed by multiple terror plots. These powers would be subject to parliamentary and judicial oversight, something which is not guaranteed under the legislation about to go before Parliament.

Liberty also believes that even such an extreme measure would be preferable to creating a permanent state of emergency. Which does seem to be the direction in which the government are heading. A direction the US has already headed, and look how successful that is. Oh, and by the way, there's no need to call a General Election if the country is in a state of emergency. Handy if you happen to be trailing in the polls by a significant amount, eh Gordon?

To put the detention issue into perspective, here's a very interesting piece from The Economist magazine from October 2007. You'll note in the sixth paragraph:

"Britain likewise suspended habeas corpus in the second world war to allow it to detain around 1,000 suspected fascists. All were released after three years. During the 'troubles' in Northern Ireland in the early 1970s, nearly 2,000 suspected extremists were interned. But the practice was scrapped in 1975, as it was clearly fuelling support for terrorism — just as Guantánamo is doing now."

The removal of habeas corpus - freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention, coupled with the right to challenge it in an independent court - is unnecessary. We have legislation in place that would allow any genuine terrorist suspects to be held longer than the current 28 day period anyway. With the removal of other pieces of restrictive police legislation, investigations wouldn't need to take longer than 28 days, plus evidence gathered by wiretap would be admissable. By increasing the length of detention without trial, the Government are actually encouraging terrorism - as happened in Northern Ireland - and restricting the liberty of British citizens.

UPDATE: There is an excellent dissection of this over at SpyBlog

This is a disgrace. We can end it.

I am the Revolution and I want my fucking country back.

Prince Harry And The Taliban

As you may have been aware, Prince Harry hasn't been doing shots in London clubs as much as usual recently. No, the third in line to the throne has been shooting terrorists in Afghanistan instead.

I shall point you to the following blog piece about the strange glorification of Prince Harry's brief tour abroad. An excellent read, addressing as it does the lack of any questioning of why "we" are in Afghanistan at all and the almost pro-war stance of the media.

Add to Afghanistan the strange situation in Iraq. We in the UK went - despite the protestations of perhaps a million people - to war with a country because they had the capability of launching weapons of mass destruction at us within 45 minutes. Except they didn't and they couldn't. But they did have quite a lot of oil, handily.

And while we were there, we removed a dictator who was a sponsor of the attacks of 9/11 and the Axis of Evil. Except he wasn't and there is no such axis. But he did have quite a lot of oil, handily.

Oh, and now the Iranians are building a nuclear weapon and may need the might of the "world's greatest democracy"(tm) to teach them a lesson or two. Now the question I have is, do they have oil?

Why do we and America need to keep having wars with people? It's almost like that once the population get used to being at war all the time, they'll put up with stuff they wouldn't do in times of peace; like the removal of civil liberties and the branding of anyone not toeing the party line as a traitor.

War is Peace

Killing In The Name Of

First jolly old Doctor Harold Shipman murdering his way through the elderly. Then Nurse Beverley Allit and her killing of children.

Now we have a new member of the health services to add to the list.

Colin Norris was today convicted of killing four elderly patients in his, er, "care", at two Leeds hospitals. The police believe that it was their early intervention - at the request of a Doctor - that stopped Norris from becoming as prolific as Shipman.

Which does make you wonder just who wants to get into medicine and why, doesn't it?

Now obviously, there are thousands of medical personnel who are committed to making people well and ensuring their care while in hospital or other places of trust. A trip to the hospital shouldn't be made more scary than it already is because you feel you might get killed by one of the staff. You're actually MUCH more likely to be killed by the various infections than the people who work there.

But it's not just hospitals where you're not safe, apparently. There are now TWO Jersey Children's Home investigations into abuse and probably murder.

Best stay at home, eh? Where the Government know where you are. Not out there on the streets, getting attacked by everyone, taken to a hospital where you'll be murdered while your children get taken away into care to be buggered by perverts. And while you're indoors, just keep watching the news to keep you feeling scared. Keep you feeling safe only if you stay in the house, keep yourself to yourself and not get involved.

Ignorance is Strength.

Okay, How Did I Miss This?

I was looking online for some information regarding pensioners living in poverty (which hopefully you will see above this), but then remembered we're supposed to call them senior citizens now and searched for that.

But discovered this article instead. Read it (even the headline will do) I'll wait.

Done? Good.

I can only assume that I missed this because it was published on my birthday and I was drunk/dead/abroad at the time.

Let me get this straight: the US Government have argued IN A COURT (The Court of Appeal in London at that!) that it is perfectly legal for them to KIDNAP British citizens from the UK if the person is *suspected* of a crime in the US. And it's legal because the US Supreme Court said it is, "so essentially, fuck off."

I am somewhat stunned by the arrogance of the US. They're not even talking about the extraordinary rendition thing that they usually do, no, they've actually told the UK Government that they will kidnap suspects from UK soil.

And I don't think I heard a murmur out of Gordon Brown. Or the Tory party come to that.

Outrageous.

Welcome To The Hate Decade

Rather depressing news today. Not only the comedy related below and the spectacular intrusion into privacy mentioned below that. No. It's murder out there. Everywhere.

Wife tries to kill husband using anti-freeze. And I think the first mistake she made was googling for information about poisoning first. Then not clearing her cache.

What you should have done love, was send hubbie out to retrieve a kid's football and let one of your neighbour's stab him to death instead.

Or, alternatively, tell him to go for a walk in a park. At night. Alone. Which seems to have beem pretty successful over the past few months.

Alternatively, you could have just booked him a holiday to Kenya.