Snooper's Charter - The Figures Are In

I read this on the way to work this morning, but I've linked to the BBC coverage and the Daily Mirror's "exclusive" as there are a couple of interesting differences in the information reported.

While the BBC does indeed mention that "councils in England and Wales have used controversial spying laws 10,000 times in the past five years" the Mirror goes on to break down the figures.

(Remember, these are the offences that COVERT operations were used to target. And covert operations are costly, which is something you might want to remember when your new Council Tax bill comes through.)

Benefit fraud, 1780 times. Anti-social behaviour, 696 times. Theft, 79 times. Noise nuisance, 942 times. Dog fouling, 88 times. Fly tipping, 451 times. Criminal damage/graffiti, 127 times. Unauthorised taxis, 138 times. Trading standards, 734 times.

You'll note - although the BBC completely fails to mention it - that none of the reasons the RIP Act has been used for by councils has been terrorist related. Which is a bit of a worry, as the Government specifically introduced this Act so that terrorist suspects could be covertly watched, rather than joe public. I suppose the BBC are ignoring this point as it would suggest (correctly) the Government haven't thought this law through properly (again).

You may also be interested to note that just nine per cent of the surveillance operations led to a successful prosecution, caution or fixed-penalty notice. Nine whole percent. Wow. However will our prison system cope?

Even more worryingly, 1,615 council staff have the power to authorise the use of RIP Act, but 21% (or 340) of these staff are below senior management grade. Yep, 340 junior staff can have you followed, covertly filmed and thoroughly investigated for something as trivial as not realising your dog has taken a dump (and therefore not cleaning it up) or over filling your bin (because you're not allowed to have a bonfire in your back garden any more).

Ladies and gentlemen of the UK, refuse to pay your Council Tax. The council may try to take you to court, but if everyone refuses, then there's not going to be anywhere they can put everyone, is there?

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"

The Stepford Society

I will be posting something about the current crackdown on alcohol very shortly, but thought this article from Computer Weekly would be of interest.

In a keynote speech to delegates at the City IT and IT Security Forum, Ian Pearson, a former BT "futurologist" and a chartered fellow of the British Computer Society, spoke of a backlash against the government's preoccupation with surveillance technologies. He warned that IT suppliers who collaborate with the government on the increasing surveillance of law-abiding citizens face a public backlash, and may be at risk of acts of violence, including the smashing of computer centres.

Within five years Pearson predicted that the government's crackdown on law-abiding people could lead to marches in the street, demonstrations outside some computer centres and - if the government takes no action - targeted acts of violence.

I've said it before, and I will say it again, it worries me that it's mainly people involved in IT that seem to be the most aware of the totalitarian state in which we are living. The Register often points out the worrying use of IT to monitor the general population, and here we have Ian Pearson saying that IT will be used to monitor the law-abiding citizens. Can everyone else please wake the fuck up?

He told the invited audience of some of the UK's largest IT suppliers and users, "By 2012 to 2013 tops you will see a technology backlash in the major population. Why is it relevant to you? Because if your firm is providing services to government authorities, which help the government to crack down on law-abiding people, you are in the firing line. Be very careful you are on the right side of the line when the [backlash occurs]. You need to be very careful indeed."

Indeed you do. Come the glorious Revolution the piano wire/lampost combination will be a fetching look for politicians and their assorted hangers on, we don't need geeks up there unless it is strictly necessary.

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

You're Next!

A colleague of mine has just rung up to tell us he'd found a USB drive lying around in an airport in Ireland. Nothing terribly unusual in that, mine falls off my lanyard about once a month. What was unusual though was the contents on the one he found.

A completely non-encrypted drive, with nice easy to read Word documents etc, showing Next's entire catalogue for next season and who was going to be sacked across the company.

Oopsie.

If anyone from Next - who his wife called to tell them about this, but they have so far failed to ring her back - would like this dongle returned, please contact me via the comments.

Ta

Tories Just As Bad At Data Security

Proving themselves to be equal to the current Government in their disregard for Data Protection laws, the Tories have admitted today that they sent the details of 3000 people to Manx Radio, a local newspaper and one other un-named media outlet.

That's the names, addresses, telephone numbers and intentions of voters in the Crewe and Nantwich by-election, by the way. So at least their banking details weren't involved for once.

Deputy Information Commissioner David Smith said "It is a serious concern if people's personal details and voting intentions have got into the public domain. Voting information is particularly sensitive. We will be launching an investigation to establish the full facts and see where responsibility lies."

Interesting choice of words there, "responsibility lies". I've noticed a bit of a theme of that recently, where people in positions of responsibility lie, and lie again in order to avoid the outcome of their actions. But I digress. The Tories, and fair fucks to them for this, have held their hands up straight away to the error.

A Conservative spokesman said: "The email shouldn't have been sent but we have done all that we can to ensure that it remains confidential. The email - which was based on information from the electoral register - was sent in error to a journalist. Within two and half hours the recipient was informed. Both he and the local newspaper he sent it on to have now given undertakings that the information on the email has been destroyed... An internal investigation has already discovered that it was due to human error but an internal inquiry has begun to ensure that it does not happen again."

You see, they are ready for Government. Blame someone, without saying who they are, start an internal investigation, so no-one knows what it is, and then claim to not let it happen again in the future. Brilliant.

Tories, Labour, LibDems, all cunts. There really is no point in voting for any one of them, we need a revolution.

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

1984 Still Not Instruction Manual

In a completely unexpected move, Home Office staffers have suggested that the UK Government need to keep a complete log of all emails and phone calls. Obviously they claim this will help deal with terrorists, because terrorism is the catch all excuse du jour for such eye watering stupidity.

The Government - who have a fantastic track record in losing data - are proposing that they should have control over this FUCKING ENORMOUS database of information. And that somehow, magically, it won't be hacked, lost, sold or used for purposes other than what you're currently being told. Because I can't imagine any junior staffer who has access - and remember, under the RIP Act pretty much every jobsworth cunt up and down the country will have access - not just having a look to see who has been contacting who.

The BBC article states that MPs haven't seen the proposals yet, handily, nor says how long the data will be kept for, but there are already objections to the plan. The Assistant Information Commissioner, Jon Bamford said:

"We are not aware of any justification for the state to hold every UK citizen's phone and internet records. We have real doubts that such a measure can be justified, or is proportionate or desirable."

Or plausible. From an IT point of view it is just unbelievable. Do-able, yes. Expensive, you bet your sweet ass. Likely to happen in a given timeframe to exacting demands of the IC? No hope in hell. As the Slashdot tag for their article suggests, goodluckwiththat. So if this does come to pass, it'll be an exceptionally costly sieve through which all your personal data will fall like water into the hands of anyone who happens to want it.

When exactly did my private communications become the property of the Government? Did I miss that fucking announcement? I will - if this becomes law - set up a spam mailer on any number of open relays (quite often Government ones) telling all and sundry about my intention to blow up numerous Government buildings. Encrypted. In Arabic.

I am the Revolution and I want my fucking country back now, you disingenuous cunts.

You Won't Need 42 Days Now, Will You?

In interesting news from Seattle, Microsoft have released a device that allows the police to get data from a PC despite your best efforts at encryption.

The COFEE, which stands for Computer Online Forensic Evidence Extractor, is a USB "thumb drive" that was quietly distributed to a handful of law-enforcement agencies last June. Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith described its use to the 350 law-enforcement experts attending a company conference Monday.

The device contains 150 commands that can dramatically cut the time it takes to gather digital evidence, which is becoming more important in real-world crime, as well as cybercrime. It can decrypt passwords and analyze a computer's Internet activity, as well as data stored in the computer.

It also eliminates the need to seize a computer itself, which typically involves disconnecting from a network, turning off the power and potentially losing data. Instead, the investigator can scan for evidence on site.

More than 2,000 officers in 15 countries, including Poland, the Philippines, Germany, New Zealand and the United States, are using the device, which Microsoft provides free. There's no news as of yet whether the UK police are one of the lucky recipients, but if they are, then the Government is going to have to do a hell of a job selling the extension to detention, seeing as they were saying how tricky it was to break encryption within the current 28 day limit.

This would be another good reason for not using Microsoft OS on your PC.

Thought Crime

In its attempt to make 1984 look like a fucking instruction manual, the Labour government are now introducing a new piece of legislation which has been derided in Parliament for making thought illegal.

Lib Dem peer Baroness Miller said the evidence linking pornography with violence was weak and that the new rules would be out of kilter with the Obscene Publications Act. In her speech, the Baroness commented that "the Minister is in danger of leading his Government into becoming the thought police... we do not have any evidence to justify an intrusion in people's lives".

Further, "the Government's contention is that by viewing it [extreme porn] people are more likely to commit violent offences. Therefore, they justify walking into people's bedrooms and turning them into criminals simply for viewing something."

The legislation was also attacked by Labour peers. Lord McIntosh of Haringey added: "What does it matter to the Government whether what we have in our homes for our own purposes is for sexual arousal or not? What is wrong with sexual arousal anyway? That is not a matter for Parliament or government to be concerned about."

Here is the Register's take on it: "If you use the internet for any purpose that might be construed as other than respectable – be afraid. Be very afraid."

Even the normally American-focused Slashdot have been disturbed about this move: "Massive surveillance? Check. Building a DNA database? Check. Laws against thought crime? Not yet, but coming very soon."

The BBC - an erstwhile institution not normally likely to mention pornography, let alone on it's front news page - has this to say: "Many fear it has been rushed through and will criminalise innocent people with a harmless taste for unconventional sex."

I say only this: I am the revolution & I'd like my fucking country back.

Function Creep And The Congestion Zone

Quite spectacular information from SpyBlog about the way the data gained from the Congestion Zone and Low Emission Zone Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras, plus CCTV cameras can be - and let's face it, probably has been - sent to the US for their "law enforcement agencies" (read NSA, CIA, FBI).

The particular bit of note is this:

"A spokesman for Richard Thomas, the information commissioner, confirmed that the certificate* had been worded so that the images of private cars, as well as registration numbers, could be sent outside to countries such as the USA."

And as the system is live 24hrs a day, the US could - right now - be watching images of your car/van/motorbike. Despite you having done nothing. Oh, and these images could be held for up to five years. Despite you still not having done anything illegal.

* - The certificate (signed by the Home Secretary on July 4 2007) specifically sets out the level of data that can be sent to enforcement authorities outside the European Economic Area (the EU plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway) by anti-terrorist officers from the Metropolitan Police. It says: "The certificate relates to the processing of the images taken by the camera, personal data derived from the images, including vehicle registration mark, date, time and camera location."

America Follows UK Lead

Rather interestingly (to me, anyway, your mileage may vary) The Register are reporting that the US of A have started to adopt the UK's policy of collecting DNA from everyone arrested.

This is - like so many things - function creep from what the DNA database was originally introduced for in the US. It was supposed to store only the DNA from people CONVICTED of sexual attacks, murders and serious violent crimes, but the Government now want to expand this to include everyone arrested for anything. Note, you don't have to be convicted of anything, just arrested. For anything.

Unlike the UK though, the US are granting its citizens a 30-day public comment period after being published in the Federal Register. The US also allows people to have their DNA removed from the database if they can prove they were wrongly arrested, but it can take up to two years to get records expunged.

And while the new rules say federal employees may not use the records to identify genealogy, genetic traits or diseases, it's unclear what is to prevent employees from skirting those rules. Seeing as only last month the US State Department admitted that workers had snooped on the supposedly private passport records of all three presidential candidates, once the information is there, people are going to do what they want with it.

Function Creep

In a spectacularly over the top use of the RIP Act, Poole Council have spent taxpayers' money setting up a covert operation to make sure a family lived where they claimed.

Oh yes.

Not a family of terrorists. Dear me no. That would probably have been assessed as infringing their human rights or some such bollocks. No, much more dangerous than terrorists: a family, who committed the heinous crime of wanting to get their three year old child into a local school.

Suspecting that they lived outside the catchment area for the school, but thinking they would pretend to be living somewhere else, the local council paid one of their own staff to set up a monitoring operation. A 'round the clock' monitoring operation. At taxpayers' expense. To see if a family were entitled to send their child to a local school.

Sorry for repeating myself there. I just wanted to make it quite clear. There was a 'round the clock' monitoring operation. At taxpayers' expense. To see if a family were entitled to send their child to a local school. For fuck's sake.

You don't think the council could just have a look at their own fucking documents and see how long this family had lived at the address, do you? See if they've been paying Council Tax there for longer than the kid had been alive? Because if they have, then it's either legit or it's a fucking amazing bit of lying. Similarly, if they haven't, then see who is supposed to be paying the Council Tax and pop in to speak to them.

How much time can be wasted on something as trivial as this? And how much money?

More than that, how much further can these cunts go and still get away with it?

I am the Revolution and I'd like my fucking country back.

Fingerprinting At Heathrow. Or Not.

With the opening of Heathrow's Terminal Five, BAA were trying to introduce the compulsory fingerprinting of every single domestic passenger who entered the lounge. They claim that this was to stop someone - presumably a wannabe terrorist - from flying through the airport on an international stop-over and swapping tickets with someone on an internal flight, thereby avoiding some levels of security check.

Let's just ignore the improbability of that for a moment and ask why Heathrow (and other UK airports*) mixes domestic and international passengers at all if there is any chance of a security risk. Well, funnily enough it's to extract money from them for the least possible outlay of cash. Have one shopping area and make sure all passengers have to pass by it, then reap the rewards of making people turn up to an airport three hours before a flight and not let them take any open liquid (or more than 100ml of any other liquid) through the security checks.

The usual method of ensuring that the passengers are who they claim to be isn't the obvious "check the name on the ticket matches the name on the photo ID they need to show before getting on the plane", but by use of CCTV cameras taking a photo of each passenger when they enter the terminal. The passenger then gets a card with a barcode on it, and this barcode is scanned as they leave the terminal and the photo compared to make sure it's still them. While I think this is an over the top way of doing it, the Information Commissioner considers it reasonable.

The IC doesn't consider the taking of fingerprints to be at all reasonable however and BAA have had to delay the start of their biometric checking while the arguments between them go back & forth. BAA do insist that they will take fingerprints in the future though, despite the protestations of the IC and various civil liberty groups.

Note, this is for internal travel within the UK. Where you live and pay taxes. Not for going overseas. This is a separate system to that employed for flights to the US or Japan. Although it would obviously be easy to link the system so that the US gets a nice collection of fingerprints for everyone who travels in the UK by plane via Heathrow Terminal 5.

BAA insist that the data is encrypted and destroyed after 24hours. Which could be entertaining if you get to the airport 24hours before your flight leaves - or your flight is delayed or cancelled due to bad weather, for example - as there'd be no corresponding data showing you are who you were when you arrived.

Not that you'd really want to travel through there anyway, seeing as there's been glitches on their first day. Not an auspicious start to the "building site with its own airport".

* On a recent flight from Newcastle to London Gatwick, I was horrified to discover - only when we landed mind, not before we took off so that I could have decided to travel by another method - that photos were taken so you could be compared at a point three hundred yards down the corridor. There's no mention of this on Gatwick's website, so I'm not sure it's entirely legal.

Can You Hear Squeaking?

That would be the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) back pedalling from comments made by their own spokesman about collection of DNA from children who "exhibited behaviour indicating criminality in later life".

Gary Pugh, Scotland Yard's director of forensic services, told the Observer: "If we have a primary means of identifying people before they offend, then in the long term the benefits of targeting younger people are extremely large."

He added: "You could argue, the younger the better. Criminologists say some people will grow out of crime; others won't. We have to find who are possibly going to be the biggest threat to society."

An ACPO spokeswoman said that although they believe the National DNA Database is "an invaluable tool", they do not support DNA profiling for children. She said: "Gary Pugh has yet to take over as the ACPO lead on the National DNA Database...If Gary has expressed the views reported in the media this morning, they are his own personal views and not that of ACPO."

I can only congratulate ACPO for their decision to distance themselves from Gary Pugh's comments.

Snouts Further Out Of Trough

Following on from the earlier post(s) about MPs expenses, the BBC are reporting that MPs expense claims from the past three years are going to be published.

Seeing as MPs have been able to claim £10k for a new kitchen in their "second home", £6k for a new bathroom and various other expenses, it could be very revealing about just how much the UK Taxpayer has been subsidising these cash grabbing bastards.

In further great news for politicians, the Joint Committee on Human Rights has slammed the Government's lax position on Data Protection.

"The report said this did not "inspire confidence" in controversial plans for a National Identity Register."

No shit.

When They Came For Me

In the old allegory of "when they came for the Communists I did not complain as I was not a Communist" etc, the final line is "when they came for me, there was no-one else left". It seems the Government are fully aware of this.

In news today (also leaked yesterday) it seems that the Government are planning to push ID Cards onto airport workers. They claim that this is because of the potential terrorist threat. But it seems an odd place to start as airport workers are already subjected to stringent security checks before they're allowed to go air-side. As is often pointed out, the people responsible for the 7/7 bombings would have had ID Cards if they'd been enforced, and that wouldn't have stopped them in the slightest.

I'm also interested to know how they're planning to force crews from foreign airlines to adopt this policy, but I digress.

The Government have also announced that they will press ahead with the previously mentioned plan to give ID cards to teenagers to "ease" application for bank accounts, student loan applications etc. Now this to me smacks of enforcing the card onto anyone who wants to go to University. Or get a job.

This is yet another attempt to introduce ID Cards by stealth. And if we don't all complain about it now, then by the time it comes for the debate about whether the card should be forced onto the "general public", everyone will have been enforced to have one anyway.

Big brother has been watching you for a very long time.

Next Census, Senseless.

In quite astounding news, the Government are planning to outsource the collating and retention (but not collection) of census data to a foreign company. Either Deutsche Telekom or, more worryingly, Lockheed Martin.

That would be the same Lockheed Martin who is a major defence contractor for the US Government. And that would be the same US Government whose Patriot Act requires all US firms to hand over any data the Government want without any protections or need for court time for a subpoena.

Angela Eagles, the Treasury Minister, has assured MPs that the data will be safe because "We have received legal advice that there is no risk that that would happen," she told the committee on Wednesday. So that's alright then, isn't it?. She continued;

"Some of the arrangements that would be made would ensure that data was owned and kept within the UK."

Right, because data leaving the country for no apparent reason never happened before, has it?

"There has been no evidence of the US Patriot Act being used to subpoena companies that are not US-based."

And I think the word you may have missed out of this sentence is "yet".

/me checks next available flight out of the UK

US Customs Seize Data

Following on from my predictions of 17th January for what may happen at border control over here, it seems that the Americans have been going through people's data for a while.

The Washington Post is reporting that customs agents are taking mobile phones, mp3 players and, of course, laptops off people arriving into the USA.

The carriers of the laptops (who aren't necessarily the owners) have to give over login and password information at the very minimum, but often the entire laptop. I would suspect that the US then rips all the information off the laptop and then attempts to see why you're a terrorist.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation and Asian Law Caucus (two civil liberties groups in San Francisco) plan to file a lawsuit to force the Government to disclose its policies on border searches, including which rules govern the seizing and copying of the contents of electronic devices.

They also want to know the boundaries for asking travelers about their political views, religious practices and other activities potentially protected by the First Amendment. The question of whether border agents have a right to search electronic devices at all without suspicion of a crime is already under review in the federal courts.

According to the Post, some companies are so wary of laptops being seized for weeks or more that they are now instructing their staff to travel with hard-drives completely empty of data. While there is obviously a risk that their data can be compromised by being collected online (after passing through customs) they assume there's less risk of it falling into the "wrong hands" than if they entrust it to the Government.

So a bit like over here in that respect then.

Go Nick Clegg!

In today's Prime Ministers Question Time, Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg asked Gordon Brown why he was leading the UK into a surveillance society and to put an end to the fingerprinting of school children.

Brown avoided answering directly (natch) but in turn asked if the Lib Dems supported the use of CCTV. I'm presuming Brown thinks there is a need for the huge increases in the number of CCTV cameras, and thinks that if the Lib Dems don't support it that they'd somehow be seen as weak on fighting crime.

Brown did manage to say "we are taking the steps to protect the liberties of citizens" so I'm guessing he feels that by removing privacy, he's somehow protecting our liberty.

Not entirely sure how that works, but that's probably why I'm not PM.

Big Brother Calls Khan To Diary Room

Following on nicely from my earlier post about bugging at high levels in the UK, Sadiq Khan MP has discovered that he was bugged while having a supposedly confidential conversation with a constituent, Babar Ahmed, who was spending time at Woodhill Prison.

Babar Ahmed, it should be noted, is currently wanted for extradition by the US who suspect him of being a terrorist (the case has been followed by The Register here). He is also, a childhood friend of Mr Khan.

There is, or was, depending on who you decide to believe, a protocol that dictates that the police will not bug Members of Parliament. As it appears that the bugging of Mr Khan has directly ignored this (Nick Robinson says that the police man who undertook it, did so with the full support of his Chief Constable) there is to be an inquiry launched by Minister of Justice, Jack Straw.

He might also want to ask some questions at Number 10, as David Davis, the Shadow Home Secretary, claims he sent a letter to the Prime Minister in December last year saying that he was aware of the bugging, but Gordon Brown is said to be "unaware" of that letter being received.

All of which is a nice distraction from the recent spate of undignified payola grabbing by MPs and their families. Almost odd that the bugging, which is reported to have taken place in 2005 & 2006, would make an appearance at this time. Fortuitous is one word for it. Suspicious is the one I'll use.