Slashdot Mirror

When used in this adversarial way, facial recognition is a force multiplier to allow a small number of people to control the actions of a large number of people. In the same way as a gun.

I can't speak for Russia, but the UK police have, to date, had very little practical success with facial recognition.

(The article link is Liberty's breakdown of the London Metropolitan Police's worryingly inaccurate and painfully crude facial recognition operation used at the 2017 Notting Hill Carnival).

Just to back up CanHasDIY:
"In recent years we have seen a variety of measures introduced that undermine the right to protest and freedom of speech.
Laws intended to combat anti-social behaviour, terrorism and serious crime are routinely used against legitimate protesters.
Broadly drafted anti-terrorism offences of 'encouragement' and 'glorification' of terrorism threaten to make careless talk a crime.
Membership of certain organisations can be banned under anti-terror laws even if the organisation is non-violent and political.
Hate speech laws have been extended in a piecemeal way to ban ever-expanding categories of speech.
Broad anti-terrorism powers of stop and search have been used to harass and stifle peaceful protesters.
Protest around Parliament has been severely restricted by laws limiting and overly regulating the right to assemble and protest around Parliament."
Source: http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/free-speech/

It's really quite scary...

Scottish attitudes towards the human rights convention and the EU in general are quite different to that of the UK

Could you elaborate on that? Given independence, would the Scottish prefer not to participate on the Council of Europe?

The right-wing media in the UK, and a fair few right-wing politicians, don't like the ECHR. The media because of "immigrants", the politicians because they're rich and get in the way of treating the workers like slaves.

See http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/human-rights/the-human-rights-act/human-rights-act-myths/index.php for some common "misunderstandings".

Aren't there laws in the UK that allow holding 'suspected terrorists' for as long as they want? So not getting charged may not mean much.

No. For "terrorism" it's 14 days, after a reduction from 28, and an attempt by the government to increase it to 42. See https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/terrorism/extended-pre-charge-detention/index.php

See http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/the-rights-of-suspects/police-powers-of-arrest/police-detention.html for the case for normal offences (24 hours, possibly extension to 36).

Would the alleged crime be illegal in the UK? Yes.

Please cite the law in question and show how it applies to Assange's specific behavior of not wearing a condom after promising he would.

It does not matter - UK law allows extradition for an alleged offence even if it is not recognised under UK law:

"The Extradition Act 2003, in implementing the European Arrest Warrant scheme, effectively abolishes dual criminality for extradition requests within the EU in respect of 32 categories of offences listed in the European Framework. This means that for these offences a person sought by an EU country can be extradited even if the alleged offence is not one recognised in the UK." http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/justice/extradition/index.php

There is a group, Republic, trying to make the UK a republic. I considered joining around the time of Prince Whatsit's wedding.

Economically, it would be nice if we didn't have to pay for the royal family. Politically, it would be nice if we could elect a head of state. Culturally, it would be nice to look round our castles and palaces, and have the art and so on in a national museum.

But, there are much, much bigger economic, political and cultural problems. I gave some extra money to Liberty instead.

Umm, you realize that there's the word "American" in the ACLU's name, right? I can imagine British groups like this one are not at all happy with either of these situations.

Sure, they'll start off requiring it ONLY for workers

That's not really an "ONLY", is it? The British government started off requiring them only for international (non-EU, IIRC) students and air-side airport workers. (The students is because there are loads of international students registered on fake courses at fake universities.)

There are some useful arguments here and here.

Given the number of other rights willingly surrendered by the good people of the British Isles

We havn't all given them up, Some of us are fighting to retain the rights we have and get back others. We now even have an political party to vote for. And even if the Pirates don't win a seat, there is another major political party committed to passing a bill to reclaim our freedom. Even the TFA is about people standing up against government committing to free ideals, even if out of selfish motives. The cause of Freedom is nowhere near lost in the UK.

I already looked thanks so your initial assumption that I didn't is false.

Strange. It's usually a safe bet on /.

I noticed that listed first is torture, which is similar to the issue I described regarding Guantanamo in that whilst I agree torture must be stopped, I wouldn't prioritise the rights of people who really are evil over those who are innocent.

The issue over Guantanamo is detention without trial by a foreign (as far as UK-based Liberty is concerned) power. The issue of torture is either deportation of people on British soil to other countries to have them tortured -- extraordinary rendition -- if that happens, it happens without trial, so why do you assume it only hapens to those who are "really evil"? -- or it's legal deportation to countries where the defendant is likely to have a confession tortured out of them whether they're guilty or not, so again this isn't an issue of defending those who are "really evil". As a UK resident, I don't want to be deported to a country where I will have a confession tortured out of me for something I haven't done. Liberty's involvement is addressing a genuine issue for the innocent UK resident.

Second up is terrorism, most work here is good because this is often used as the excuse for supression of the population.

Yep. And it's one of the things you said Liberty was not addressing adequately.

Privacy is 3rd

The site is confusing here -- the order of issues on the home page is not the same as that on subsequent pages. I'll stick with the order on the home page, and shuffle your comments around to match. Human Rights Act is third, which addresses things like public bodies trying to evade their responsibilities under the Human Rights Act by subcontracting to private bodies who are not subject to the same controls. I consider that to be an important issue.
Fourth is Free Speech:

Free speech- again, important and good. No problems here.

Agreed.
Now we're up to Privacy:

similarly this is rather important as it covers some of the stuff that's important but what's glaringly lacking here is absolutely no coverage of online privacy- RFID, CCTV, ID cards, DNA data retention but nothing about the continued infringement of online privacy.

I agree with your positives there. As for online privacy, I agree that it's hard to find on their website, but it is there, for instance here. That's an issue of poor web design, not an issue of Liberty failing to campaign where they should.

Then we have Asylum

Again, following the sequence on the home page we have Protest, then Equality:

The equality section looks rather pointless, their only equality news listings over a year are about winning the right for a sikh girl to wear a religious band in school. The problem here is that many schools put limits on what kids can and can't wear to school as part of their uniform just as many jobs dictate uniform. Religion should not be allowed as an excuse to flout the rules that everyone else adheres to unless the rules themselves are stupid in which case it should be the rules as a whole that should be defeated or changed, not an individuals right to ignore such rules over everyone else.

If you read the articles you'll see that the rules as a whole had already been defeated, 25 years earlier by the Law Lords, and the school decided to ignore the law on the matter. That was the human rights issue, and it was a legitimate one. But yes, there's not a lot in the equality section, probably because the UK is good on the issue, but more likely because there are a lot of more specialist campaign groups on specific equality

This is the biggest issue I have with liberty.

They're more interested in helping to free British citizens in places like Guantanamo who really were caught in the middle of a warzone, fighting alongside the Taliban against British soldiers than they are protecting the rights of people in the UK who really are innocent of any crime and yet who are having their liberties infringed daily.

In a word, bollocks. Did you follow the link I gave? (oh, sorry, forgot this is /.) It was Liberty who took the RIP act to the ECHR and got the ruling that it needed more oversight and transparency. It's Liberty who fought curfews for under 18s. It's Liberty who are fighting for the right to protest. It's Liberty who are fighting ID cards and the surveillance state. On the other hand, I am not aware of any Liberty campaigning on Guantanamo -- if they've done any it's been very muted (though no doubt if asked a Liberty spokesperson would say that detention without trial is a bad thing). Liberty are doing all the things you say they need to, and as far as I can see are doing none of the things you say they shouldn't. Check out what's really happening before condemning them -- their website isn't hard to find, once you realise they're not the London department store.

It's only a newspaper story. It's confused as to whether the Home Office are operating this power or talking about it.

Just so. What's particularly suspicious is that although they have a quote from Liberty about this, there doesn't seem to be anything about it on Liberty's website -- this should be front-page news for them. In fact, the last thing Liberty has on the subject is this from last year, in which the European Court of Human Rights ruled that RIP was a violation of human rights and that the UK was obliged to add more transparency and accountability.

You might also want to join an organisation like Liberty

We have that in parts of the UK too, including where I live. Although Libery (an approximate UK equivalent of the ACLU) has done a good job of challenging the curfew orders, "imminently anticipated bad behaviour" is vague enough that they're effectively still in place.

Oh, OK, seeing as you were banging on domestic UK politics as if you knew something about it, I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were here.

the thing you probably need to do most is to work to throw your Liberals out of office and hope your Conservatives will do better.

Thanks for the advice, but the Liberal party hasn't formed a government since 1920.

if you have been working on behalf of all those causes its sad your efforts have been such a failure because your causes are losing and losing badly.

Wrong again.

Close, but no cigar. FORTY-TWO DAYS.. No, you couldn't make it up, could you.

Bear in mind that the extradition treaty is an expresson of sovereign will enabled by an Act of Parliament introduced in the democratically elected and accountable-to-the-voters House of Commons.

So, the undermining of UK sovereignty was a sovereign decision, as with any other treaty that constrains the executive or judicial system, or which delegates sovereignty to some extranational body like the European Union or Council of Europe. Unless there is a conflict with other strong expressions of sovereignty ("entrenched statute and practice", i.e, the Constitution) there is no issue of erosion.

There were arguments raised in the past (Soering v United Kingdom 11 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1989); Bermingham, Mulgrew & Darby * - v - Director of Serious Fraud Office and The Attorney General (HCJ Judicial Review 2004, appeals to CA and ECHR denied)) that the treaty was unconstitutional on its face; these were rejected by the Court of Appeal for the United Kingdom, and by the European Court of Human Rights. The general thrust of the rulings is that if there is prima facie a case to answer, and a valid extradition treaty and process, and the extradition is to a state generally recognized as democratic, with an independent judicial system upholding the rule of law, then there is no constitutional impediment to extradition to be found in human rights law provided that the punishments faced are broadly in line with Council of Europe standards.

That is not to say that the treaty is a good one, or that the entire electorate (or House of Commons, or Parliament) supports the one-sided nature of extraditions for crimes that rely upon some degree extraterritorial jurisdiction, the low bar on evidence (there merely has to be enough to warrant a trial), or the long long long period of waiting in partial custody in the USA for a trial date as in the case of the Natwest Three. It is also not clear that the USA is universally regarded as having a particularly fair judicial system ( cf http://freegary.org.uk/ ), but then McKinnon is not a black man facing a capital crime trial in the Texas state courts.

If you feel like helping change the minds of the electorate and some future democratically accountable government, feel free to make a donation to http://liberty-human-rights.org.uk/ or pointing your UK-resident friends at it.

...why UK citizens don't seem overly concerned?

Well, I am a UK citizen and am concerned so obviously I'm hiding it well... or else you're giving a hideous generalisation. Yes, it's probably true that the perceived threat of terrorism is causing the majority of the unthinking masses to accept some changes in the law without criticism... but that's been true in both the UK and US. After all, you lot passed the Patriot Act and you were obviously so concerned that you voted Dubya to remain in office three years later. In similar vein, the majority of UK citizens have (tacitly, at least) accepted some need for increased security after 9/11 so will probably see this proposed change in UK law in this light. That doesn't mean that the majority of UK citizens understand the full import of the privacy issues involved... but, like most Slashdot users, we're in an educated minority who do understand the differences.

At present, what's been presented is a consultation document from the Home Office. It's not been presented to Parliament for formal consideration as a change in the law. The Home Office have released the document to get feedback from concerned organisations (probably including those that will benefit from the data but also those organisations concerned with privacy and human rights) and citizens.

Also, as a consultation document, it does at least include the "do nothing" option in their table of possible options. Never underestimate the power of inertia.

I rather suspect that Liberty (the human rights organisation, not the rather expensive shop in Regent's Street, London) will have something to contribute to the debate. http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/

Except that RIP, passed in 2000 (yes dear, pre-911) means you go to jail if you refuse to divulge your keys when asked (and if you let anyone else know that you've done so, even passively, e.g. by no longer replying to emails. Some of us protested about this at the time, and oh! how the tin-foil hat jokes flowed, yea verily even here on Slashdot if I remember right. And in real life - it was more a case of backing away carefully whilst smiling cheerfully and maintaining eye contact.

FWIW I donate to No2ID and Liberty, amongst other organisations active in this area. And I may even be holding my nose and voting Tory next time, if they make authoritative statements that they'll roll this crap back... something I swore I would never, ever do. (Leftie UK readers of a certain age will know what I mean.)

Those two things will take you about 20 minutes, and when you've done em you can come back here and rant along with me, with a new-found sense of entitlement and smug self-satisfaction at your personal involvement in the issue. Hey it works for me.

So, yeah, Labour MPs who voted for this disgraceful attack on fundamental rights we've had since Runnymede ought to be utterly ashamed of themselves; they've revealed that they are unprincipled bunch of spineless tossers, and I think there's a line about weasel's and god's clean air from Blackadder that springs to mind, too. Fuck Brown, and fuck this government, too. I've even crossed a personal rubicon whereby I now think a Tory govt would be preferable, something I never thought I'd say.

The kid should consult a solicitor (Brit-speak for a lawyer) with a background in human rights issues. Liberty should be able to point him in the right direction.

Keep an eye on "S and Marper v United Kingdom", where two British citizens who've had their DNA taken argue that this retention is in breach of their human rights. More here: http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/european-court-of-human-rights-dna-case-will-promote-national-database-deb.shtml

I'd recommend voting Lib Dem, if only because the introduction of proportional representation to Westminster is a condition for entering into a coalition with them (in the event of a hung parliament).

That's almost the only reason to vote Lib Dem these days, though, unless your local Lib Dem MP/candidate happens to be a good representative regardless of party affiliation. The problem is, the other parties with a credible chance of getting in aren't any better either. There just isn't a powerful party in the UK right now based on simple principles like fairness, freedom, responsibility, and balance, which means the entire political centre ground just votes for whichever of the big parties makes the most croud-pleasing sound-bites in the run up to election day and/or screwed fewest things up lately (or doesn't vote at all).

For what it's worth, I think Liberty do a good job of both drawing popular attention to the sorts of abuse we're discussing here and of providing practical support to those who wind up on the wrong side of it unjustly. They have quite a high profile, and it's pretty rare that I see one of their spokespeople saying something I don't strongly agree with. If you want to do a good deed for today, you could always send them some money. Actually, they have two parts, and if you give to the Civil Liberties Trust, you can even gift aid your donation, which has the amusing side effect that the government will give money back to Liberty and, if you are a higher-rate taxpayer, to you as well for supporting a cause they probably wouldn't like very much. The campaigners would probably prefer the money to be given to Liberty itself, though, since while that can't be gift-aided, it can be used to support things like political lobbying that the CLT can't because of the rules on charities. Anyway, there's a thought if, like me, you'd happily support opposition to the surveillance state but can't find a political party you actually want to vote for.

I think that's my cue to puff Liberty, the approximate equivalent of the ACLU, as an excellent organisation to support, donate to, and join.

Perhaps I'm a useful idiot falling into the classic liberal trap :) but, for those of us not especially interested in taking up arms against the state, might I suggest that joining Liberty and/or No2ID? (I might? Why, thank-you. "Hey, why not join Liberty or No2ID?"

A small "hoorah!" for the civil liberties NGO Liberty, who've been campaigning on this for a year or so. We've got one of these things in the nearest small Gloucestershire market town I go for my beer and pizza, and I haven't noticed any reduction in moody 15 y.o.s hanging round the shopping centre... they just hang around a couple of hundred yards away from the arcade where the thing's sited.

A small "hoorah!" for the civil liberties NGO Liberty, who've been campaigning on this for a year or so. We've got one of these things in the nearest small Gloucestershire market town I go for my beer and pizza, and I haven't noticed any reduction in moody 15 y.o.s hanging round the shopping centre... they just hang around a couple of hundred yards away from the arcade where the thing's sited.

http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/

Broader-based, and likely to be more effective than, a UK-EFF.

As someone who enjoys taking photos I buy a couple of photo mags a month ( no not that sort....) and two of them have an article this month on your legal rights (I am a UK citizen YMMV) and in the UK designs such as buildings and cars for example are designs under copyright.

Anyway have a look at http://copyrightservice.co.uk/protect/p15_design_rights

After reading about the terrorist laws been used against random photographers/people I decide I had to join liberty http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/ So my hobby has done some good.

and so it begins.....

It begins?!

My country (the UK) isn't at the top of the slippery slope, it's falling over at the bottom. We have the legal basis right now for detention without trial, suppression of peaceful protest, arbitrary restrictions on movement (under several different laws now, actually), criminalisation based on what books you read or Internet sites you visit, arbitrary stop and search by the police, and a database state with mandatory ID cards to help enforce it all.

The only way they get away with it is because the abuses have been relatively subtle so far. A few people under house arrest, if you conveniently label them terrorist suspects, don't cause too many ruffled feathers, you see. Protests outside Parliament? Well, no-one likes them, they're just an eyesore we're better off without. A few incorrect fines because ANPR caught "your" car in a charging zone hundreds of miles from where you really were at the time? Well, some people won't even bother going to court (since it costs more than paying the incorrect fine) and the others will probably be happy just to get their money back. A few people evicted from the family homes they've lived in for decades to build a new motorway over the top? It's for the Greater Good, you see. One elderly party veteran and Holocaust survivor thrown out of a conference for a one-word heckle of a minister who took us illegally to war, and then refused readmission using anti-terrorism legislation? The law wasn't meant to be used that way. What, it was anyway? Bad policemen, no biscuit! A dead government worker here, an immigrant shot seven times in the head there, it doesn't matter, we're winning the fight to protect people's freedoms against the evil terrorists, especially the most important freedom, which is the freedom to be safe from harm, you see!

Well, I've been looking for some worthy causes to support recently. I think I'll make one of my next donations to Liberty.

(Disclaimer: No doubt many people involved in these things are doing them with the best of intentions, and yes, of course many of the people affected are nasty pieces of work. But that's not the point — at least, not if you're one of the innocent people who winds up on the wrong end of the law because of a mistake.)

Results 1 - 10 of about 40,600 for` Usmanov torture' . (0.10 seconds)

I had a rush of blood to the wallet the other evening (due to having had a couple of G&Ts more than was strictly prudent) and went on a mad "joining and donation" binge; I now find I'm a member of Liberty an Amnesty International. Probably not a great deal of help, but it's better than nothing.

Actually, it's the self same Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Stephen Sedley (to give him his full title) who is proposing this, however I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and suggest that you were simply pointing out the irony of him being the president of a Human Rights organisation, albeit one that I've never heard of. Instead of them, I suggest joining Liberty who have already issued a press release speaking out against this idea.

Actually, it's the self same Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Stephen Sedley (to give him his full title) who is proposing this, however I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and suggest that you were simply pointing out the irony of him being the president of a Human Rights organisation, albeit one that I've never heard of. Instead of them, I suggest joining Liberty who have already issued a press release speaking out against this idea.

Heh :-)

I'm wondering if this suicide-attempt-on-film stuff is quite accurate anyway, or if there's an element of urban legend in here. I'm not sure how much it really matters to the main point of the article, but the Guardian had to apologise for making this mistake:

In this article we repeated a series of errors relating to an incident involving a person who, we wrongly said, was shown on CCTV attempting suicide in the centre of Brentwood in Essex. We published a correction and apology relating to the earlier article on August 4 last year. In part, this is what it said: "In fact the CCTV recording showed no evidence of a suicide attempt, but it did show a man carrying a large knife ... and it showed the man being disarmed by the police. We accept that and we also accept that the CCTV recording was not sold but released - on the understanding that the individual's identity would be protected - to demonstrate how a potentially dangerous situation could be avoided." We repeat that there was no film of a suicide attempt, Brentwood council did not sell the CCTV footage of the incident, and in addition the police did not calm the person down and rush him to hospital. We repeat our apologies to Brentwood council.

This page goes into the case in some detail.

That'd be the government that has effectively banned protests everywhere unless advance permission is obtained. And it is unlikely to be granted if the powers that be disagree with the protest.

You don't have to. You can turn off your computer just as easily as you can turn off your TV and radio.

Please note that I don't think that the freedom of speech argument is any justification for allowing spam to continue. I just don't happen to think it's an argument for most of the other things it's brought out in defence of, either (and I write as a member of Liberty, an approximate UK parallel to the ACLU, so don't read me as being pro-censorship, either!)

As for parliamentary sovereignty, that was effectively removed when the UK joined the EU

ironically enough is *far* more protective of the "common man" than the government of the day

it certainly would be a lot easier if everything was collected in one place

I'd like a constitution that placed limits on the UK government

It is not a Bill of Rights of the people, in the US sense, that lays out the individual rights of citizens and establishes their permanent protections from all forms of government. What the British lack is a Bill of Rights that sets boundaries on the supremacy of Parliament and holds individual liberties above any future acts of parliament.

Some semi-relevant links for UK residents:

http://www.cfoi.org.uk/
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/
http://www.cyber-rights.org/
http://www.justice.org.uk/

"The UK is the world leader in video surveillance. Britain is monitored by 4 million CCTV cameras, making us the most watched nation in the world.

There is one CCTV camera for every 14 people in the UK. If you live in London you are likely to be on cameras 300 times a day."

just a little snippet from this link.
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/privacy/cct v.shtml

Would your friend say that they're a generally "good" employer? Would she want to keep working there? There's always the risk that her name could be made public, despite her wishes, during any action.

If you want advice, somewhere like the Citizen's Advice Bureau or her Trades Union (taking along any relevant contract of employment) would be a good starting point. Depending on what a workplace CCTV camera is actually doing and (most importantly) what the company has said that it is doing with the data the company may or may not be abiding by the data protection act or not. Even if they aren't now, a simple declaration may be all it takes to abide by the law (with the camera staying, which may not be what your friend wants). The ICO would be a useful organisation to contact but (from experience) not until you've definitely got a case.

If you want someone who's likely to campaign on your behalf, try "Liberty" (http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/). People have certainly made interesting use of the 1998 act (see http://www.fnord.demon.co.uk/mt/fifth/cctv.html).. .

Another possibility, although a bit of a long shot, would be the Human Rights Act (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1998/19980042.htm ). It's pretty vague in places, and while it's unlikely that said cameras interfere with e.g. "... the right to respect for his private and family life ..." it might be worth reading.

The usual caveats apply - I'm not a lawyer, but have been involved with the deployment in a camera system at a former employer in the past, and was involved with the discussions as to legal requirements (then under the 1984 act) re data retention policy and security, and later of the effects of the 1998 act (on non-camera data).

Liberty needs you too, Kraut.

Bah - same as above, but with the right URL: http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/.

Hey, not fair, I saw them first...

Anyway, there is also statewatch, privacy international and liberty.. Also plenty of ideas (dmca, biometric rfid passports, airline passenger data selling/sharing, listening in to internet traffic with warrants and listening in to radio traffic without (UKusa)) have roots in the USA, so the EFF and ACLU should be doing their part already. Not that the brits need help thinking up stuff like this, but still.

1. Swiss and Italian authorities made a request ot the USA under Mutual Legal Assisstance Treaties
2. The FBI issue a supoena to Rackspace (A US-based hosting company, who were hosting the Indymedia servers in their UK facility.)
3. Rackspace co-operate with the FBI, and hand over the servers

1. An anonymous author post this message, on 17th June:

   with the G8 on the horizon, we looked for a simple yet effective way to stick two fingers up to this oil-addicted society.we found one! a train that carries brand-new cars from portbury dock nr avonmouth through the avon gorge to ashton and bedminster to desperse at temple meads for the rest of the country. Some questions that came into our little minds were:is portbury dock fianancially-competative? [yes], who paid for the tracks and maintance from portbury to parson St bedminster?. has anyone ever seen a passenger train on this route?,and sitting on a hot coach because you can't afford hiked-up train fayres, you see yet more new cars you can't afford to buy being transported by rail,to consume more oil, that our enviroment can't take. So we did an oxygen-grab as a kind of work-out up to the summit.Lifting and then dropping rocks onto useless pieces of metal.[17/06/05] We are feeling fit now for the greedy-ate, we suggest others should take aim and practice. The forth-coming event around gleneagles will not automatically mean a head-on confrontation with the old-bill, they have more spiteful weapons than us, so let us side step them and unbalance them using our minds. good luck stay free, S.P. ray.

   (copy & paste from my Firefox cache.) This post was hidden within 24 hours, for violating Bristol Indymedia (BIM) policy. (I don't know exactly when it was hidden.)
2. An individual with a history of conflict and disagreement with BIM then contacted police about the post, since it hints that the poster threw rocks at trains, or the cargo on trains, or the train tracks ("dropping rocks onto useless pieces of metal.")
3. Police initally contacted BIM last monday, 20th June. BIM take legal advice.
4. Police request IP logs from a BIM member on 21th June.
5. Later on the 21st, BIM inform police via their solicitor that they will not voluntarily hand over and information. (NB: for non-Brits, a solicitor is a type of lawyer.) BIM also inform Indymedia UK at this point, and contact Liberty
6. Yesterday, 27th June, police visit the home of the BIM member who hosted the server with a search warrant, and seize the BIM server and the individual's own computer, and arrest the BIM member.

As a UK citizen I am ashamed and appalled at the continuous erosion of civil liberties that have taken place during the last couple of terms of government.

B'liar is in the process of forcing through optional (year, right!) ID cards through parliament today that will cost an average of over $200/citizen (to be bourne by taxpayers of course). In addition everyone who wants to have a passport renewed will be forced to be finger-printed and iris scanned.

http://www.no2id.net/IDSchemes/faq.php
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/privacy/id- cards.shtml

All of these pieces of information will be stored and cross-linked with other personal details totally ignoring the data protection laws in the UK (that all businesses have to comply with and were put in place to try and prevent this sort of gradual slip into a surveillence society). In addition, the UK is the process of testing out road charging that will require all cars/busses/lorries to be fitted with a satellite tracking system so that the location of *every* vehicle continuously and this information will be available to the police.

I don't know about anybody else but this scares the hell out of me - especially with changes to the court systems to avoid the use of juries in certain cases and the 'anti-terrorism' laws (currently being contested) that allow *anyone* whom the state deems to be 'a threat to the state' to be detained without trial. I wonder whether there will be a ban on reading George Orwell's '1984' next...?

I have a young family with children in school and family here but if I had less attachments then I would be getting the hell out of here fast!

• no2id
• Stand
• Liberty

Sounds like a very untrustworthy ISP.

Its a complicated issue as it involves international transfer of personal data. This document may shed a light on this issue. In effect transfer of personal data to USA is not condoned under the UK Data Protection Act 1998.

Although according to the document, the law does give powers of transfer to the ISP, this seems like a grey area unless an agreement was signed to enable the ISP to give personal information to third parties.

To quote from the document.

8.8 Legal Compulsions: It should be noted that there is no exception for legal compulsion. If a data controller in the UK is required by the law of another country to transfer personal data to that country there is no blanket exemption allowing the transfer to take place. It might of course be that the transfer is necessary for reasons of substantial public interest or is necessary in connection with legal proceedings but this will not necessarily be so. A judgement will have to be made based on the circumstances of the particular case and nature of the legal requrement.

DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998
International Transfers of Personal Data

Since its an American law I don't think the UK ISPs can give out information without a warrant from the UK courts proper.

Why not take this up with human rights organisation like liberty?

Nope, we're ahead again. The government has just decided that all Britons are going to have to have biometric ID cards linked to a centralised government database. All in a country that has no written constitution, essentially no freedom of information, detention without trial, the acceptance of evidence gained under torture in criminal trials, where the police have repeatedly been found to be institutionally racist and with a government who thinks that George Bush is the best thing to come out of Texas since crude oil.

Apparently we need Big Brother surveillance because: (and I quote) 'In this country we have a proud tradition of being a free and open society. Freedoms are not only embedded in our democracy, but in the very way we live our lives.'

So do we have the freedom to vote against this proposal? - errr no.

But to be fair to Blunkett and friends, the government did hold a consultation exercise. Okay they tried not to tell anyone about it, but they did have one. 66% of the people who responded voted against ID cards - which was a bit of a problem for a government hell-bent on introducing them (despite not having made up its mind) So the Home Office excluded all those people who had sent in responses via groups such as Liberty. Et voila! 66% against becomes 60% in favour!

Honestly, I don't know why the US is bothering with electronic voting, a few British statisticians will get you the results you want.

You can read the whole Orwellian document here (PDF document).

Best wishes,
Mike.

Is it just me, or is tending towards the facist and totalitarian a pre-requisite of being a British Home Secretary? I'm 29 and spent most of my life growing up under the Tories. They weren't any better. The trouble is, it's swings and roundabouts and not enough people will ever vote Lib Dem. Even if they got in, I'm sure they'd end up being just like New Labour or old Tory.

Or am I just too cynical?

Liberty