[Gllug] Editors

[kb at oisin.snaz.co.uk]

On Tue, Jul 31, 2001 at 01:05:11PM +0100, David Freeman wrote:
>  --- Kieran Barry <kieran at esperi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > On Sun, 29 Jul
> 2001, Tom Gilbert wrote:
> > 
> > > Conspiracy theories. Boring.
> > 
> > You are so naive, it's amazing.
> 
> It has been said. I prefer Idealistic to naive.
>  
Sorry David, I was addressing this to Tom, who implied that anyone concerned
about civil liberties was spreading conspiracy theories

> > Read up on the Birmingham Six. Read about the "appalling vista"
> > judgement by Denning. (The suspects were covered in bruises. Prison
> > officers were charged with assault. They were acquited. This meant
> > that
> > the convicted "murderers" must have been assaulted by the police.
> > When
> > proceedings got to Denning, Master of the Rolls, head of the appeal
> > court, he said that it was so embarassing, he wouldn't allow the case
> > to
> > be heard. 15 or so years later, he said they should have been hanged
> > to
> > avoid the hassle. Forensic tests proved that the "confessions" were
> > not
> > records of interviews, but composed out of order by the police.)
> 
> Currupt powers yadda yadda yadda. How will you stop people coming
> currupt, it comes back to what was said by someone in an earlier post,
> who watches the watchers?

A problem long wrestled with. The current answer seems to be "Nobody".
I don't think this right.
>  
> > Read up on any of the other miscarriages of justice. The ones that
> > got
> > freed (and there were many) all happened because it was proven that
> > the
> > police lied in the witness box.
> 
> This will always happen as long as there is crime.

The point isn't that there is corruption in the Police. What causes concern
is that it is so visible, and that when it is detected, very little happens.

If we combine this with increasingly silly laws (wiping out pit bulls in the
UK, potentially imprisoning people for forgetting passwords, removing the
right to silence, eliminating trial by jury etc.) we run the risk of 
going from policing by consent to policing by force, with the police an
occupying army. Admitedly, the risk seems small. But if things get out of
hand, you won't stuff the genie back in the bottle easily. (look at Seattle,
Gothenburg, Genoa for an example.)
>  
> > Actually, far more interesting, most of these cases clearly involve
> > conspiracy of pervert the course of justice.
> > 
> > The right to privacy, to avoid self-incrimination and the burden of
> > proof are based on the absolutely clear grounds that the state has
> > huge
> > powers which could be abused. Suppose one of your users has kiddie
> > porn
> > on his account. He leaves, and you delete everything, but retain old
> > backup tapes. Most people would agree that in this case, although you
> > have possession which constitutes an offence, no harm is done, no
> > intention is present, and the case shouldn't be pursued.
> 
> True, but you are tackleing the wrong problem, and this happens with
> every law there is. Why does this guy have kiddie pron and where did he
> get it from? Stop it at source, if parents look after there kids they
> wont be in a situation where they can get kids.

I'd rather some sick fool look at pictures of kids than touch real ones.
But the police and press have decided to hunt the pictures. Am I the only
one who thinks they have their priorities wrong here.
>  
> > What happens if a police officer comes in following a laptop theft.
> > In 
> > the lift, you make a joke that he thinks takes the piss. He
> > asks you to examine all files on all backups. (This is unreasonable,
> > but
> > in the context of the police suggesting that everyone make 7 years'
> > logs available, not impossible.) Kiddie Porn is found in /usr/local.
> > Is
> > this what you want?
> 
> No its not, see comment above.
>  
> > Have you or any of your friends ever bought illegal drugs? If you
> > have
> > nothing to hide, please make available details of every financial
> > transaction over UKP1 in value for the last ten years.
> 
> > Remember, anyone who objects must have something to hide...
> 
> Why do you say that. Are you saying that everything I know and own
> should be visable to everyone as I have nothing I shouldn't have. Do
> you mind if I come and watch you and you girl friend next time you goto
> bed? if you've nothing to hide you wont mind.

This was designed to be provocative. I've actually heard home office officials
tell an audience that the only people who need fear RIP were Drug traffickers,
child molesters and terrorists. The audience were furious.

Also remember that a full software audit costs. During the RIP debates, the one thing
the home office refused to do was accept the costs of surveillance. It costs
to be completely open, to dig up information on request. If you ask Companies 
house or the Land registry for info, it costs. If the government asks us,
we get the cost. 

This is the most trivial control, and still doesn't exist.
>  
> > If you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to fear...
> 
> Oh but we have alot to fear. Remember it is not what I have done wrong
> which will put in trouble, it is what others have done wrong. see
> birmingham six above, they did nothing wrong and had nothing to hide,
> but they got nicked because others did stuff wrong, and hid it.

Rules were bent to get a result. Careers were advanced, and people slept
soundly in their beds.

And the guilty walked free. The law looked foolish. The police conspired
not to find the real killers. Were anyone else found to have acted in the
same way, and revealed, what would have happened?

Regards

Kieran

-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug