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

Mon Jun 2 14:33:20 UTC 2008

Hi David,

Excellent points indeed and you've helped me understand your point better. I
can see where you're coming from and sure, every human has a fundamental
desire for privacy at some level in their lives. However, my entire "I have
nothing to hide" argument really relates to Phorm. People don't like the
idea of Phorm simply because it monitors what they do and they feel that
will be used against them, i.e. prosecute them for illegally obtaining
music.

I understand systems can fail and computers can be wrong - a computer does
what's told by a human and human error is a fact of life - but still the
chances remain very low that this would even happen. I could be hit by a bus
whilst walking to the shops tomorrow... should I not go to the shops or find
an alternative route/form of transport? Perhaps others have been hit by your
£60 fine analogy and just shrugged it off because their lives are too busy -
I guess that is a serious flaw - but I ask you this: what can you do about
it? Leave the country? Complain about it?

When something like Phorm hits our lives it deeply affects a lot of people
and as such it causes public outrage and very firm and stiff letters to be
written to the relevant parties. My whole view on this is not what Phorm
does, but the way it has gone about testing and implementing its self thus
far -- illegally.

On 6/1/08, David Holden <dh at iucr.org> wrote:
>
> 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.
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chester mailing list
> Chester at mailman.lug.org.uk
> https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/chester
>

-- 
M. T. Crilly
http://www.mcrilly.co.uk/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/chester/attachments/20080602/92bc03c7/attachment.html>