[Chester LUG] Fwd: [lugmaster] [S0107981 at Cumbria.ac.uk: [admin] [Feedback] Press Release - Prostesters to Picket Shareholders at BT PLC AGM]

[David Holden]

On Sunday 01 June 2008, Michael Crilly wrote:
> I don't close my blinds/curtains - again it boils down to personal
> preference. If someone comes onto my property to look through my windows...
> well, my father is ex-special forces and a very large man - I'll say no
> more.

The point here was that personal privacy is a fundamental human need, I 
suspect that even in your case there are boundaries of personal privacy 
beyond which despite you doing nothing illegal you would not want others to 
cross, also people should not have to resort to ex-special forces relatives 
to defend their personal privacy ;-)

>
> The biometric information isn't absolute, though. They can't say, "OK well,
> your biometric ID matches a crime committed in London" - I've never been
> London... ever. The crime would need to be commitment in my area, whilst
> I'm present, not to mention the other facts of the case. Biometric/DNA
> evidence isn't absolute, it's merely accepted in court.

The point here of course isn't that you would not ultimately be able to prove 
your innocence but that through faulty surveillance information you may have 
to prove your innocence. 

One of the risks of mass surveillance is that because of failures of design 
and use combined with the possibility of massive trawling is that many people 
will be faced with the prospect of guilty until proven innocent rather than 
vica versa. 

One of the main coming issues here will be for low grade "crimes", e,g. the 
computer says you were illegally driving in the bus lane Friday morning, you 
have two alternative pay a 60 pounds fine or go to court and risk a 1000 
pound fine, lots of folk with busy lives will just take the hit rather than 
risking a 1000 pound fine to prove that the systems is at fault.


>
> I can be held without charge for 28-42 days without charge - but only under
> the terrorism act; and act of, or involvement in, terrorism has to be
> proven. 


As I demonstrated by my example of the misuse of RIPA, laws brought in under 
the guise of serious crime often get use for much less serious crimes or (non 
crimes).  I'm sure we all remember the disgraceful episode of 82 year old 
Walter Wolfgang being detained under the anti terrorism act after being 
ejected from the labour party conference for shouting "nonsense" during Jack 
Straw's speech.


> No disrespect, but both you and Paul have gone to extremes to prove 
> an already perfectly valid point that I understand and accept - Phorm
> invades your privacy.

Sorry I wasn't trying to make a point regarding Phorm I don't know enough 
about this,  I was just addressing your point about "nothing to hide" one 
which I hear a lot in the context of the ID cards debate but personally feel 
is flawed for the reasons I outlined.

>
> I do value my privacy and there are lines I don't want companies crossing -
> this isn't one of them as it's what I expect from greedy, money-grabbing
> companies that care not for your well being.
>
> Why did the council watch that mother? I father does that very job - he's a
> P.I. now - I can assure you the council obtain permission from a Judge,
> which isn't easy. There must have been a reason for it? :)

Here's the Guardian on this particular story

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/apr/11/localgovernment.ukcrime

Cheers,


Dave.




>
> On 6/1/08, David Holden <dh at iucr.org> wrote:
> > On Saturday 31 May 2008, Michael Crilly wrote:
> > > I have strange feelings towards this Phorm thing. I don't mind being
> > > "spied" on, if you can call it that, because I have nothing to hide;
> > > just as I don't mind CCTV, biometric ID cards, DNA tests and databases
> > > - I
> >
> > don't
> >
> > > break the law and I don't have a criminal record it is therefore only
> > > in place to assist me, not hinder me.
> >
> > There are two obvious problems with the "nothing to hide" argument.
> >
> > Firstly if you have nothing to hide ask yourself the question "why do I
> > close
> > my curtains in the evening?", presumably you aren't doing anything
> > illegal in
> > the evening.
> >
> > Secondly it assumes that these methods of surveillance function without
> > error.
> > You may not mind having your biometrics on a national database however if
> > that database through error of function, design or both matches your
> > record against particular criminal activity, disruption to you life will
> > be more than minimal.
> >
> > Given that government IT projects currently have a 70 percent(!!!)
> > failure rate the second of these problems is not unlikely.
> >
> > Combine this with legislation that will allow you to be held without
> > charge for 28 (42) days and mass surveillance seems to be a little less
> > benign.
> >
> >
> > Also beware arguments along the lines that powers introduced to allow
> > pervasive surveillance will only be used in serious cases recently Poole
> > council used the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) to draw up
> > a list of a mother's movements showing the times and exact routes of
> > school runs with her children. These included detailed notes such as
> > "female and three children enter target vehicle and drive off" and
> > "curtains open and all
> > lights on in premises". The mother said her daughter was having trouble
> > sleeping because she feared "a man outside watching us". You may ask why
> > were
> > they using an act designed for serious crime or terrorism, the family had
> > recently sold their house but were still living in it to qualify for the
> > local school..
> >
> >
> >
> > Dave.
> >
> > > However, the thing that does boil my blood about Phorm is purely the
> > > fact they're breaking the law. I hate, with a passion, big companies
> > > thinking they can just do as they please and are above the law - i.e.
> > > MS.
> > >
> > > That's my two-cents on the matter :P
> >
> > --
> > Dr. David Holden.
> >
> > See: <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html>
> > regarding Word or PowerPoint. GPG key available on request.
> > -------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Chester mailing list
> > Chester at mailman.lug.org.uk
> > https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/chester



-- 
Dr. David Holden.

See: <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html>
regarding Word or PowerPoint. GPG key available on request.
-------------------------------------------------------------