Slashdot Mirror
No Passport For Britons Refusing Mass Surveillance
UpnAtom writes "People who refuse to give up their bank records, tax records & details of any benefits they've claimed, and the records of their car movements for the last year, or refuse to submit to an interrogation on whether they are the same person that this mountain of data belongs to — will be denied passports from March 26th. The Blair government has already admitted that this and other data will be cross-linked so that the Home Office and other officials can spy on the everyday lives of innocent Britons. Britons were already the most spied upon nation in Western Europe — more so even than Sweden. Data-mining through this unprecedented level of mass-surveillance allows any future British government to leapfrog even countries like China and North Korea."
That's like an american getting views on the democratic party from Fox News.
That was my first thought as well, but the summary has articles from the Independent and Guardian (the other end of the political spectrum) as well, it just goes to show that NuLabour hasn't got support from any paper on this issue, except perhaps the Sun.
Personally, I lost faith in the British press long ago, and only buy Private Eye, IMO the least bias news organ in this country.
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
because Europe has parties that are actually left leaning and get elected.
The UK doesn't. The two main parties are both centre right, and the Lib Dems don't have a coherent policy on anything (they're too busy trying to be the "true alternative" to have any policy other than "we will increase taxes").
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
Actually, only about 26% of the people voted for the current government.
In Soviet Russia you were legally obliged to have your passport with you at all times — although many weren't carrying it with them, that could was grounds for involuntary visit to the precinct...
Oh, and no, you could not leave the country with that passport — you needed a different, special one. An impossible one to receive for ordinary citizens, BTW.
Sad to see UK getting a step closer to that, but it is still very far away from it...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Amazing that not many people in the world, even in the U.S., know that the U.S. instituted a you-can't-leave list with the passport reform law last January. If you are on the list, no matter what, you are not leaving the country, not by car, cruise ship, cargo ship, plane,foot, or train. Like the U.K, your country is your prison. And don't expect Canadians to help hide you, because entering while on that list is a crime, and they are now using our "criminal" lists to block entry; sneaking past the American wall would qualify you as a federal criminal, therefore your ass is being sent back to the Home of the Free.
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.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Seriously, at least in the US if you are afraid of the police, stop and ask why? Chances are it's either irrational, or you know you're doing something that you should not.
Bullshit.
You can be a citizen of both the US and UK, with 2 passports (or at least you can if you're considered to be a citizen of both countries "by birth"). If you're a dual national, you can also opt to have a "Cerificate of Entitlement To The Right of Abode" placed in your American passport, which makes your US passport "double" for a British passport at immigration control (I used to have this as a kid until my family moved back - now I carry both US and UK passports).
One thing to note about getting a UK passport while being a citizen of the US as well - the Passport Agency will send you a little letter before they send your passport out, pointing out that as you're also a citizen of another country you should double check that countries rules. All you have to do is send a little "go ahead" form back (I'm guessing it's so that the Passport Agency can't be blamed if you accidentally loose your other citizenship).
And you have to remember that you can enter the US only on your US passport (I'm not sure if there are any rules when entering the UK)
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
Basically, yes. For the visa waiver program, the US requires biometric identification, as well as background checks, and that both triggered and is driving this effort.
I am always amused by this fantasy on the part of the American right that the British public was ever armed. Handguns were banned after some fuckwit shot up a school. About 50,000 people were affected - or rather less than one in a thousand of the British population.
We let guns be banned because practically none of us have ever had guns, or ever had any inclination to want such things.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
If RPGs are classified like grenade launchers, then they are considered "Destructive Devices" in the eyes of the Federal Government. If you live in a state and a municipality that allows citizens to own such items, and you want a DD, you'd need to register it with the BATFE (which is a big pain in the ass, involving a long amount of time and from what I can remember, at least a signature from the Chief of Police or Sheriff of the jurisdiction the weapon will reside in; however, from some simple reading, it looks like corporations are not required to obtain the signature, odd...) and pay an excise tax (for either manufacturing or transferring) of $200 on the weapon, and then the same tax on each piece of ammunition. It becomes rather expensive to fire the weapon since you have to pay that tax on each individual round.
Wikipeida article on Destructive Devices
Here's an informative forum post that might help as well
Suffice to say, it's legal and possible, just a real severe pain in the ass.
Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
Britain had much more experience dealing with domestic terrorism than the US, thanks to the Irish Republican Army who never wasted any good opportunity to bomb London.
Better yet, it wasn't until AFTER 9/11 that the US finally outlawed giving money to the IRA in the US (remember those tipping dishes in irish bars? Did you think the money went to the busboys???)
The U. S. Department of State says this:
The United States government does not have exit controls at the border. There is no way to stop someone with valid travel documents at the United States border. The U.S. government does not check the names or the documents of travelers leaving the United States. Many foreign countries do not require a passport for entry. A birth certificate is sufficient to enter some foreign countries.
But that's now obsolete. Now there's the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative:
Here's the Federal Register reference. The first phase (the "air phase") is already in place; the second phase (the "sea and land phase") may require further Congressional approval.
No, it's because the UK has never agreed to accept the passport control part of the Schengen agreement. The Schengen agreement is what allows people to not present a passport when traveling between all EU states (not all of them have implemented it yet) except the UK and Ireland, as well as at least Norway and Iceland - there may be a couple of other non-EU members too. It still requires people crossing the borders to keep an approved id document on them when outside their own country. Note that for citizens of a few of those states, such as Norway, a passport may be the only approved id document they have access to, so they may defacto be required to have a passport anyway - it just won't get checked at the border.
The IRA would give warnings (usually coded, and largely useless) before many of their attacks, IIRC they claimed their primary aim was to destroy property, not people (though they didn't care much if people were caught up). This causes just as much terror, but when people died they can do as the military does and label it collateral damage (I don't think they ever used that term, but the sentiment was the same). So things like the 11\09\01 attack were condemned by their political wing (Sinn Fein) immediately. However this was no surprise as the peace process was well under way by the time of 11\09\01 and the IRA had been under ceasefire for quite a few years.
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
Ah, idealism. How quaint.
In case you hadn't noticed, the current Labour government were elected by only about 22% of the population, thanks to our bizarre first-past-the-post system. (It was only around 1/3 of those who actually voted, and actually lost the popular vote in England, for the record.)
The current Labour government did face millions of people in the streets protesting against the war in Iraq, yet ignored them and went ahead anyway.
The current Labour government set up an on-line petitions web site to collect public feedback. The overwhelming majority of signatories in the first few days were for a single petition, opposing the proposed road charging measures, with nearly 2 million people signing up. The government's immediate reaction was dismissive, and made it clear that they have no intent to change their policy any time soon.
Please understand this: the current government is toast. They have been toast since almost the day they won that "historic third term" based on dubious election mechanics. They have no integrity, and no accountability until the next general election, which could still be several years away. Their only concern at this point is to entrench as much of their abusive policy as possible and cement Blair's "legacy" before they are kicked out. It's like having a five-year lame duck government running the show. What does a lame duck administration care about protests? There is no mechanism for the people to remove them from power early, and they have zero chance of securing a fourth victory, so protests don't matter to them at all.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Well, that rather depends on where and when you were living.
Have you heard of The King David Hotel Bombing, Irgun or The Stern Gang?
The world changes, but few groups of peoples have particularly pure histories.
--- My dad's political betting
Come back to me when an entire political party bases it's platform around hatred of the Muslims.
Ok, I'll bite. Perhaps you are unaware of the existence of the British National Party.
The BNP "stands for the preservation of the national and ethnic character of the British people and is wholly opposed to any form of racial integration between British and non-European peoples." The party is "committed to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration and to restoring, by legal changes, negotiation and consent the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948." Accordingly, the BNP proposes "firm but voluntary incentives" to remove ethnic minorities from the UK, advocates the repeal of all anti-discrimination legislation, and restricts party membership to "Indigenous Caucasians."