There is a series of interesting radio shows, A World of Possibilities, which has been airing in the US about the commons and wealth. It's produced by the Mainstream Media Project, " a nonprofit public education and strategic communications organization that uses the mainstream broadcast media to raise public awareness about new approaches to longstanding societal problems."
The specific programs are called:
What is Wealth? Passing on the Gift, where Bill Gates Snr says there is no such thing as a self made man - the wealth of millionaires is not generated in a personal vacuum but with the help of lots of people, groups, communities, and yes even government.
Richer Than We Know: Reclaiming Our Natural Inheritance covers commons resources like air and water, parks and roads etc that most of us take for granted.
Who Owns This Place Anyway? looks at the interdependance of commons and markets.
Recommended.
Friday, January 20, 2006
Thursday, January 19, 2006
The girl who names Pluto
The BBC have a nice story about the girl who named a planet.
"Venetia Phair isn't a name that immediately springs to mind when you mention astronomy.
But the retired teacher from Epsom in Surrey has left an indelible signature on our map of the Solar System.
Now 87 years of age, Venetia Phair (née Burney) is the only person in the world who can claim to have named a planet."
"Venetia Phair isn't a name that immediately springs to mind when you mention astronomy.
But the retired teacher from Epsom in Surrey has left an indelible signature on our map of the Solar System.
Now 87 years of age, Venetia Phair (née Burney) is the only person in the world who can claim to have named a planet."
LSE Prof on ID cards
There are some great lines from Professor Ian Angell of the LSE in a Q&A with ZDNet yesterday:
"You obviously don't think the scheme will be a success then?
I feel ambivalent about it. As a taxpayer, I'm horrified. As a professor of information systems, I'd love them to implement the scheme, because a lot of work will come from this. It'll be like watching the Titanic from the drawing board to the iceberg. This is going to be a shambles.
Why do you think it'll be such a shambles?
To implement an information system, you need to have a clear set of objectives to reach and aims to address. What you have here is a moving target. The cards may be used for e-commerce authentication, but also as an ID card, like an Ahnenpass, which is what the police want.
An Ahnenpass?
An Ahnenpass is what the Nazis issued to the Jews to identify them. This is what the Muslims will see it as. White-boy organisations demanding searches, and charging taxpayers for it.
Some estimates put the cost of implementing the scheme at £300 per person. Will it really be that expensive?
The overall cost may not be £300 per person, because the government will generate income from the system, by selling the system and the expertise to run it to other governments. But the only governments that will take it are other disreputable ones. The scheme will not work. The social environment it will be dropped into will be so disruptive. It's not even clear if the scheme is legal under EU law.
Are there any other reasons why you believe the scheme won't work?
These people [the government] have obsessive-compulsive neuroses. Idiotic designers who think the world can be proscribed and ordered just so, when the world is non-linear. The flap of a butterfly's wing, and so on. This is a government of control freaks, who don't understand there's no such thing as control...
Final thoughts?
This will blow up in their faces, and it'll be a hugely expensive explosion."
It's a must read.
"You obviously don't think the scheme will be a success then?
I feel ambivalent about it. As a taxpayer, I'm horrified. As a professor of information systems, I'd love them to implement the scheme, because a lot of work will come from this. It'll be like watching the Titanic from the drawing board to the iceberg. This is going to be a shambles.
Why do you think it'll be such a shambles?
To implement an information system, you need to have a clear set of objectives to reach and aims to address. What you have here is a moving target. The cards may be used for e-commerce authentication, but also as an ID card, like an Ahnenpass, which is what the police want.
An Ahnenpass?
An Ahnenpass is what the Nazis issued to the Jews to identify them. This is what the Muslims will see it as. White-boy organisations demanding searches, and charging taxpayers for it.
Some estimates put the cost of implementing the scheme at £300 per person. Will it really be that expensive?
The overall cost may not be £300 per person, because the government will generate income from the system, by selling the system and the expertise to run it to other governments. But the only governments that will take it are other disreputable ones. The scheme will not work. The social environment it will be dropped into will be so disruptive. It's not even clear if the scheme is legal under EU law.
Are there any other reasons why you believe the scheme won't work?
These people [the government] have obsessive-compulsive neuroses. Idiotic designers who think the world can be proscribed and ordered just so, when the world is non-linear. The flap of a butterfly's wing, and so on. This is a government of control freaks, who don't understand there's no such thing as control...
Final thoughts?
This will blow up in their faces, and it'll be a hugely expensive explosion."
It's a must read.
Canadian MP threatens to sue Michael Geist
Canadian MP, Sam Bulte, who has received campaign funding from entertainment industry lobbyists and pushed for copyright reforms, has threatened to sue law professor, Michael Geist. The MP is on record as saying
"I am not taking money from special interest groups. As you know, you can look at my returns. All of my election returns are noted, they are transparent. Ninety percent of my donations came from individuals. Ten percent came from organizations or corporations. They are not hosting a fundraiser for me. A fundraiser is being held. Individuals are invited. Everyone is invited. It is self-funding. And yes, there will be artists there. It will be a celebation of my support for the arts community."
Geist analysises these claims:
"Let me address each claim in turn. First, Bulte says she is not taking money from special interest groups. As I documented earlier this month, Bulte has accepted contributions from a long list of copyright associations and collectives, so her claim would only be truthful if she is no longer taking their money. However, given that the leaders of the copyright lobby associations are hosting the fundraiser and providing the entertainment, that does not appear to be a supportable claim.
Second, Bulte says that 90 percent of her donations came from individuals on her last return. This is simply false. Her 2004 riding association return posted on the Elections Canada site shows contributions of $67,737 (the fifth largest total among Ontario Liberals). That amount breaks down as $38,789 from individuals (57 percent), 19,848 from corporations (29 percent), and $9,100 from trade unions (13 percent), which include several copyright collectives.
Third, Bulte indeed stated that "they are not hosting a fundraiser for me." Again, looking at her website and the registration form this does not stand up to even minimal scrutiny."
It's good to see a respected academic having a serious impact on an election campaign.
"I am not taking money from special interest groups. As you know, you can look at my returns. All of my election returns are noted, they are transparent. Ninety percent of my donations came from individuals. Ten percent came from organizations or corporations. They are not hosting a fundraiser for me. A fundraiser is being held. Individuals are invited. Everyone is invited. It is self-funding. And yes, there will be artists there. It will be a celebation of my support for the arts community."
Geist analysises these claims:
"Let me address each claim in turn. First, Bulte says she is not taking money from special interest groups. As I documented earlier this month, Bulte has accepted contributions from a long list of copyright associations and collectives, so her claim would only be truthful if she is no longer taking their money. However, given that the leaders of the copyright lobby associations are hosting the fundraiser and providing the entertainment, that does not appear to be a supportable claim.
Second, Bulte says that 90 percent of her donations came from individuals on her last return. This is simply false. Her 2004 riding association return posted on the Elections Canada site shows contributions of $67,737 (the fifth largest total among Ontario Liberals). That amount breaks down as $38,789 from individuals (57 percent), 19,848 from corporations (29 percent), and $9,100 from trade unions (13 percent), which include several copyright collectives.
Third, Bulte indeed stated that "they are not hosting a fundraiser for me." Again, looking at her website and the registration form this does not stand up to even minimal scrutiny."
It's good to see a respected academic having a serious impact on an election campaign.
ANPR data to be held for 2 years
From the Register,
Police are able to hold vehicle licence plate data for up to two years, the Government has confirmed.
In response to a Parliamentary question last week, Home Office Minister Paul Goggins said data collected through Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) technologies could be retained for up to two years for "justified policing needs".
Moglen says GPL 3.0 draft agressively anti-drm
Eben Moglen, general counsel for the Free Software Foundation, says the latest draft of the GPL is deliberately and aggressively anti-drm.
"The new version of the most widely used open-source license takes a "highly aggressive" stance against the digital rights management software that's widely favored in the entertainment industry, said Eben Moglen, general counsel for the Free Software Foundation.
At a two-day event here to launch the General Public License version 3, which governs use of countless free and open-source programs, Moglen said the license includes anti-DRM provisions that could put it in conflict with movie studios and even digital video recorder maker TiVo."
"The new version of the most widely used open-source license takes a "highly aggressive" stance against the digital rights management software that's widely favored in the entertainment industry, said Eben Moglen, general counsel for the Free Software Foundation.
At a two-day event here to launch the General Public License version 3, which governs use of countless free and open-source programs, Moglen said the license includes anti-DRM provisions that could put it in conflict with movie studios and even digital video recorder maker TiVo."
NCC submission to APIG DRM Inquiry
The National Consumer Council submission to the All Party Internet Group inquiry into drm makes interesting reading. Summary:
"The National Consumer Council recognises the value of intellectual property rights (IPRs) as a reward to innovators and creators, but is concerned about the costs placed on consumers of enforcing these rights, and the use of the enforcement of IPRs to curtail legitimate consumer freedoms. The way Digital Rights Management (DRM) technology is being deployed is causing a number of serious problems for consumers. These include:
• Inability to play digital products on their equipment;
• Limitations on the number of copies they can make;
• Adverse impacts on the use and security of their equipment;
• Inadequate information to make informed purchase choices;
• Unfair contract terms; and
• Loss of privacy rights.
The NCC believes that consumers' rights can no longer be merely recognised informally, as this has allowed the adoption of Digital Rights Management tools to violate previously accepted arrangements in IP law and consumer rights under consumer protection and data protection law. Policy makers muct now carefully consider putting consumers' legitimate interests on a more robust legislative, and positive footing."
They go on to conclude:
"There are a number of serious problems with the deployment of Digital Rights Management in relation to the provision to consumers of digital products. Yet current EU and UK copyright legislation protects DRM by making avoidance ("circumvention") illegal.
The NCC accepts that there may be a serious problem with organised criminal infringements (counterfeited products), but the industries involved too often conflate criminal and consumer activites. Given the resources available to many criminal gangs, the ability of DRM to halt these activities is minimal. However, the use of DRM can and is already constraining legitimate consumer use of products and consumer rights under consumer protection and data protection law.
The development of DRM so far suggests that leaving it to industry self-regulation will conpromise and limit the legitimate rights of consumers. This means that it is insufficient for the regulation of DRM technologies merely to be concerned with their protection from circumvention. A more balance legislative framework is needed which provides explicit recognition of consumer rights and ensures that anit-circumvention protection is only provided to DRM systems that meet the required standards."
It's well worth reading the 10-page report in full. Well done to the authors - it's not common to see the case so clearly put.
"The National Consumer Council recognises the value of intellectual property rights (IPRs) as a reward to innovators and creators, but is concerned about the costs placed on consumers of enforcing these rights, and the use of the enforcement of IPRs to curtail legitimate consumer freedoms. The way Digital Rights Management (DRM) technology is being deployed is causing a number of serious problems for consumers. These include:
• Inability to play digital products on their equipment;
• Limitations on the number of copies they can make;
• Adverse impacts on the use and security of their equipment;
• Inadequate information to make informed purchase choices;
• Unfair contract terms; and
• Loss of privacy rights.
The NCC believes that consumers' rights can no longer be merely recognised informally, as this has allowed the adoption of Digital Rights Management tools to violate previously accepted arrangements in IP law and consumer rights under consumer protection and data protection law. Policy makers muct now carefully consider putting consumers' legitimate interests on a more robust legislative, and positive footing."
They go on to conclude:
"There are a number of serious problems with the deployment of Digital Rights Management in relation to the provision to consumers of digital products. Yet current EU and UK copyright legislation protects DRM by making avoidance ("circumvention") illegal.
The NCC accepts that there may be a serious problem with organised criminal infringements (counterfeited products), but the industries involved too often conflate criminal and consumer activites. Given the resources available to many criminal gangs, the ability of DRM to halt these activities is minimal. However, the use of DRM can and is already constraining legitimate consumer use of products and consumer rights under consumer protection and data protection law.
The development of DRM so far suggests that leaving it to industry self-regulation will conpromise and limit the legitimate rights of consumers. This means that it is insufficient for the regulation of DRM technologies merely to be concerned with their protection from circumvention. A more balance legislative framework is needed which provides explicit recognition of consumer rights and ensures that anit-circumvention protection is only provided to DRM systems that meet the required standards."
It's well worth reading the 10-page report in full. Well done to the authors - it's not common to see the case so clearly put.
Orders is orders
Quote of the day:
Look to authority for orders, filter them through a fine mesh of common sense with a decent dollop of creative misunderstanding and occasional insidious deafness because authority doesn't understand the reality at street level.For some reason I'm reminded of this in the midst of the various revelations about UK and US involvement and complicity in torture. I think this is from Terry Prachett's Night Watch but can't be entirely sure.
What No. 10 knew about CIA rendition flights
All over the media this morning (e.g. this Guardian piece) is the leak of a memo about how much the UK government knew or more precisely didn't know about the CIA rendition flights landing in the UK and alledgedly taking terrorist suspects to regimes which practice torture.
The government is secretly trying to stifle attempts by MPs to find out what it knows about CIA "torture flights" and privately admits that people captured by British forces could have been sent illegally to interrogation centres, the Guardian can reveal. A hidden strategy aimed at suppressing a debate about rendition - the US practice of transporting detainees to secret centres where they are at risk of being tortured - is revealed in a briefing paper sent by the Foreign Office to No 10.
Article continues
The document shows that the government has been aware of secret interrogation centres, despite ministers' denials. It admits that the government has no idea whether individuals seized by British troops in Iraq or Afghanistan have been sent to the secret centres.
Dated December 7 last year, the document is a note from Irfan Siddiq, of the foreign secretary's private office, to Grace Cassy in Tony Blair's office. It was obtained by the New Statesman magazine, whose latest issue is published today.
It was drawn up in response to a Downing Street request for advice "on substance and handling" of the controversy over CIA rendition flights and allegations of Britain's connivance in the practice.
"We should try to avoid getting drawn on detail", Mr Siddiq writes, "and to try to move the debate on, in as front foot a way we can, underlining all the time the strong anti-terrorist rationale for close cooperation with the US, within our legal obligations."
The document advises the government to rely on a statement by Condoleezza Rice last month when the US secretary of state said America did not transport anyone to a country where it believed they would be tortured and that, "where appropriate", Washington would seek assurances.
The document notes: "We would not want to cast doubt on the principle of such government-to-government assurances, not least given our own attempts to secure these from countries to which we wish to deport their nationals suspected of involvement in terrorism: Algeria etc."
The document says that in the most common use of the term - namely, involving real risk of torture - rendition could never be legal.
EDRI-gram survives
Good news from EDRI-gram
"The campaign for support for EDRI-gram has been very successful. After an urgency call for pledges in the last 2005 issue of EDRI-gram, kind donators have pledged a little over 2.000 euro in support. On top of that, the Open Society Institute (Soros) kindly offered a donation of 1.500 euro. Combined with the 4.000 euro scraped together by EDRI itself, EDRI is pleased to announce the survival of EDRI-gram in 2006. The new editor, Bogdan Manolea from EDRI-member APTI in Romania, has agreed to produce 24 editions in 2006."
And with that good news comes the latest edition, full as usual with important stories on digital rights issues. Notable is the pointer to Privacy International's report "Threatening the Open Society: Comparing Anti-terror Policies and Strategies in the U.S. and Europe" published just last month.
"The campaign for support for EDRI-gram has been very successful. After an urgency call for pledges in the last 2005 issue of EDRI-gram, kind donators have pledged a little over 2.000 euro in support. On top of that, the Open Society Institute (Soros) kindly offered a donation of 1.500 euro. Combined with the 4.000 euro scraped together by EDRI itself, EDRI is pleased to announce the survival of EDRI-gram in 2006. The new editor, Bogdan Manolea from EDRI-member APTI in Romania, has agreed to produce 24 editions in 2006."
And with that good news comes the latest edition, full as usual with important stories on digital rights issues. Notable is the pointer to Privacy International's report "Threatening the Open Society: Comparing Anti-terror Policies and Strategies in the U.S. and Europe" published just last month.
Ndiyo
I learn from Quentin Stafford-Fraser that the Ndiyo Project has a new look website. "Ndiyo is a project set up to foster an approach to networked computing that is simple, affordable, open, less environmentally damaging and less dependent on intensive technical support than current networking technology." It's a terrific initiative and there is a huge need for it. Check out the site and if you can help in any way I'm sure Quentin would be happy to hear from you.
EU parliament investigate CIA secret prisons
The EU parliament has set up a committee to investigate allegations of secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe.
Taking the "I" out of identity
Sean McGrath in IT World thinks we need to be taking the "I" out of identity on the Net.
Electronic identity is subtle at best, certainly insanely complicated and possibly even intractable.'SO an identity architecture on the Net, to facilitate commercial and government service provision, need not be the a privacy invading architecture. It's counter-intuitive and hard for people to get their heads round, even when they can be encouraged to think about it.
As is often the case with seemingly intractable problems, revisiting basic assumptions is always a worthwhile exercise. The big assumption here is that to do business electronically with someone, you need to know who they are. Is that really true?
Sometimes it most definitely is true of course but there are a significant number of use cases where it is not true. Sometimes lurking behind the phrase 'we need to know who they are' lies the real substance of the concern which is 'we need to know they can pay' or, more generically 'we need to know that the person/thing we are interacting with can conduct a value exchange.'
The cracking noise you can hear in the background is the rending of two concepts that tend to be bound together. The concept of identity on one hand and the separate concept of 'ability to conduct value exchange' on the other. People turn up with cash. They can clearly pay. People turn up with checkbooks. They can clearly pay. People turn up with credit cards, they can clearly pay...
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Karlin Lillington is none too complimentary about the data retention directive.
"Let's set aside the cost implications of storing such data for even six months. The EU allows for up to two years retention, and McDowell has indicated he will challenge the legislation to allow Ireland to keep its period of three years.
You have to ask why we need this draconian method of slipshod surveillance on citizens, this storing of evidence in advance of anyone doing anything wrong, on the anti-democratic assumption that because a handful of us will do something wrong, four million people should have their personal data squirreled away for future scrutiny.
Slipshod - because the directive (and our existing legislation) doesn't necessarily affect the smaller operators that are more likely to be used by terrorists and criminals, as calls are easier to hide. Slipshod - because while the law is supposed to "harmonise" retention across Europe it does nothing of the sort, allowing each state to have a different regime.
Slipshod - because we rush to bring in surveillance that the US would not dare to impose on its citizens...
This is what Gus Hosein, senior fellow of UK-based watchdog Privacy International, told the new Irish privacy watchdog, Digital Rights Ireland: "The EU used to set the standard for privacy protection. Now because of pressure from the UK and Ireland, the EU is 'going it alone' and leading the world in surveillance of all of our interactions and movements in the information society."
Pressure from Ireland. What has happened to us? And why are we allowing our Government to turn us into this disgraceful surveillance nation?"
"Let's set aside the cost implications of storing such data for even six months. The EU allows for up to two years retention, and McDowell has indicated he will challenge the legislation to allow Ireland to keep its period of three years.
You have to ask why we need this draconian method of slipshod surveillance on citizens, this storing of evidence in advance of anyone doing anything wrong, on the anti-democratic assumption that because a handful of us will do something wrong, four million people should have their personal data squirreled away for future scrutiny.
Slipshod - because the directive (and our existing legislation) doesn't necessarily affect the smaller operators that are more likely to be used by terrorists and criminals, as calls are easier to hide. Slipshod - because while the law is supposed to "harmonise" retention across Europe it does nothing of the sort, allowing each state to have a different regime.
Slipshod - because we rush to bring in surveillance that the US would not dare to impose on its citizens...
This is what Gus Hosein, senior fellow of UK-based watchdog Privacy International, told the new Irish privacy watchdog, Digital Rights Ireland: "The EU used to set the standard for privacy protection. Now because of pressure from the UK and Ireland, the EU is 'going it alone' and leading the world in surveillance of all of our interactions and movements in the information society."
Pressure from Ireland. What has happened to us? And why are we allowing our Government to turn us into this disgraceful surveillance nation?"
Cameron attacks Blair on ID cards
Tory leader, David Cameron, made ID cards the focus of PM questions today.
"Tory leader David Cameron asked if spending £600m a year on ID cards was a good idea at a time when the money could be spent on the NHS instead. Mr Blair said it would make a "major difference" on crime.
Mr Cameron said the cards would not come in until 2013 and the money could be used on security and police. Mr Blair asked the Tories to "work with us" to introduce the cards more quickly. He asked Mr Cameron to "think again" about cards and said that "They may be the future, not the past".
Mr Cameron asked the prime minister whether Gordon Brown backed the ID cards scheme. Mr Blair said the government was committed to them. He said identity fraud was on the increase and said "we need identity cards", using biometric technology. The largest part of costs would come through biometric passports which are being brought in anyway.
Mr Cameron said prime minister's questions was about him asking questions on "behalf of the public" with the PM answering them on behalf of the government, rather than asking about Tory policies. He added that ID cards would become a "monument to the death of big government".
Mr Blair said Mr Cameron's policies changed daily and ID fraud was a "major and growing problem". Mr Blair predicted the Tory leader was "standing on his head" on many issues, and would have to change his policy on ID cards at the next election."
"Tory leader David Cameron asked if spending £600m a year on ID cards was a good idea at a time when the money could be spent on the NHS instead. Mr Blair said it would make a "major difference" on crime.
Mr Cameron said the cards would not come in until 2013 and the money could be used on security and police. Mr Blair asked the Tories to "work with us" to introduce the cards more quickly. He asked Mr Cameron to "think again" about cards and said that "They may be the future, not the past".
Mr Cameron asked the prime minister whether Gordon Brown backed the ID cards scheme. Mr Blair said the government was committed to them. He said identity fraud was on the increase and said "we need identity cards", using biometric technology. The largest part of costs would come through biometric passports which are being brought in anyway.
Mr Cameron said prime minister's questions was about him asking questions on "behalf of the public" with the PM answering them on behalf of the government, rather than asking about Tory policies. He added that ID cards would become a "monument to the death of big government".
Mr Blair said Mr Cameron's policies changed daily and ID fraud was a "major and growing problem". Mr Blair predicted the Tory leader was "standing on his head" on many issues, and would have to change his policy on ID cards at the next election."
Hilary Rosen on US lobbying reforms
Former RIAA chief, Hilary Rosen has clear views on plans to reform lobbying in the US - they won't work.
"How strange to be a former lobbyist sitting back watching the hand wringing debate over lobbying reforms and ethics. To date nothing I've seen from Capitol Hill makes sense to me and the media is too consumed with ethics and revelation to talk about the real problem.
Damn straight when I gave a $1,000 or $2,000 to a lawmaker I wanted him to listen to my business proposition.
And when I helped organized an event that raised $50,000 or $100,000 you bet I expected their vote. Why else do it...
A lobbyist friend told me yesterday that enacting these reforms is like creating a "restraint of trade" on behalf of current lobbyists. Only those who already know members of Congress are sure to succeed. Anyone else coming in - forget it, no new relationships. The old school will be raking it in...
Corruption is sometimes obvious, like with Jack Abramoff, but just as often in Washington it is a subtle thing that happens to decent people.
The ONLY answer to all of this is public financing of elections. Then lobbying becomes genuine "education" and relationships are built on respect and constituent interest. It seems so obvious."
"How strange to be a former lobbyist sitting back watching the hand wringing debate over lobbying reforms and ethics. To date nothing I've seen from Capitol Hill makes sense to me and the media is too consumed with ethics and revelation to talk about the real problem.
Damn straight when I gave a $1,000 or $2,000 to a lawmaker I wanted him to listen to my business proposition.
And when I helped organized an event that raised $50,000 or $100,000 you bet I expected their vote. Why else do it...
A lobbyist friend told me yesterday that enacting these reforms is like creating a "restraint of trade" on behalf of current lobbyists. Only those who already know members of Congress are sure to succeed. Anyone else coming in - forget it, no new relationships. The old school will be raking it in...
Corruption is sometimes obvious, like with Jack Abramoff, but just as often in Washington it is a subtle thing that happens to decent people.
The ONLY answer to all of this is public financing of elections. Then lobbying becomes genuine "education" and relationships are built on respect and constituent interest. It seems so obvious."
Google Mart
Robert X. Cringely reckons Google learnt a lot more about how to do business from Walmart than from Microsoft.
Lords strike out glorifcation of terrorism clause
The House of Lords have inflicted another defeat on the government, this time on the latest terrorism bill.
"PLANS to curtail the actions of Islamic extremists by banning the glorification of terrorism suffered a setback last night after peers voted down the proposed new offence.
A series of peers denounced the offence as pointless and said that its removal from the Terrorism Bill would still allow suspects to be charged with indirect encouragement to commit acts of terror. A move to strike glorification of terrorism from the Bill was carried by 270 votes to 144, a majority of 126, at its report stage despite government protests that the power was needed.
Ministers confirmed last night that MPs will be asked to reinstate the offence when the Bill returns to the Commons...
The proposal to outlaw glorification of terrorism was introduced after Mr Blair announced a series of measures to curb so-called “preachers of hate” and extremist websites, videos and publications in response to the London bombings last summer."
Good news that the Lords have struck that provision of the bill and it's a shame the Commons is going to re-introduce it. As for the excuse for introducing it in the first place, hard cases and vague legal drafting make bad law. We really have no idea what will constitute "glorifying terrorism" in practice.
"PLANS to curtail the actions of Islamic extremists by banning the glorification of terrorism suffered a setback last night after peers voted down the proposed new offence.
A series of peers denounced the offence as pointless and said that its removal from the Terrorism Bill would still allow suspects to be charged with indirect encouragement to commit acts of terror. A move to strike glorification of terrorism from the Bill was carried by 270 votes to 144, a majority of 126, at its report stage despite government protests that the power was needed.
Ministers confirmed last night that MPs will be asked to reinstate the offence when the Bill returns to the Commons...
The proposal to outlaw glorification of terrorism was introduced after Mr Blair announced a series of measures to curb so-called “preachers of hate” and extremist websites, videos and publications in response to the London bombings last summer."
Good news that the Lords have struck that provision of the bill and it's a shame the Commons is going to re-introduce it. As for the excuse for introducing it in the first place, hard cases and vague legal drafting make bad law. We really have no idea what will constitute "glorifying terrorism" in practice.
Torture for Dummies
Michael Kinsley on the torture debate.
That's a pretty good rule for any policying - we should not 'build a general policy on [anything] around a situation that is not merely unlikely in real life, but different in kind from the situations we are likely to face in real life.'
"salami-slicing." You start with a seemingly solid principle, then start slicing: If you would torture to save a million lives, would you do it for half a million? A thousand? Two dozen? What if there's only a two-out-of-three chance that person you're torturing has the crucial information? A 50-50 chance? One chance in 10? At what point does your moral calculus change, and why? Slice the salami too far, and the formerly solid principle disappears...
Drawing bright lines in foggy situations is what the law does. But good rules need to be defensible against salami-slicing in a more general way. The strength of an absolute ban on torture—or an absolute rule of any sort—is its relative immunity from salami-slicing, both in theory and in practice...
Will you eschew torture even when a few minutes of it, applied to a very bad person, would save a million lives? One answer is that the law wouldn't really be enforced in such an extreme situation...
There is yet another law-school bromide: "Hard cases make bad law." It means that divining a general policy from statistical oddballs is a mistake. Better to have a policy that works generally and just live with a troublesome result in the oddball case...
Of course a million deaths is hard to shrug off as a price worth paying for the principle that we don't torture people. But college dorm what-ifs like this one share a flaw: They posit certainty (about what you know and what will happen if you do this or that). And uncertainty is not only much more common in real life: It is the generally unspoken assumption behind civil liberties, rules of criminal procedure, and much else that conservatives find sentimental and irritating...
morality does not require us to build a general policy on torture around a situation that is not merely unlikely in real life, but different in kind from the situations we are likely to face in real life. What we would do or should do if this situation actually arose is an interesting question for bull sessions in the dorm, but not a pressing issue for the nation.
That's a pretty good rule for any policying - we should not 'build a general policy on [anything] around a situation that is not merely unlikely in real life, but different in kind from the situations we are likely to face in real life.'
Corporate Watch report media comment
The Guardian has a short article on the Corporate Watch report.
"Corporate Watch, a Quaker-funded research group in Oxford, says that some of the companies now being consulted by the government about possible involvement "have previously overseen disasters in public sector IT work". They included the US giant EDS, BT Global Services and PA Consulting. "While companies involved in these projects must take some of the blame it would be a mistake to ignore the role of poor planning and mismanagement by government departments," the group's report states."
"Corporate Watch, a Quaker-funded research group in Oxford, says that some of the companies now being consulted by the government about possible involvement "have previously overseen disasters in public sector IT work". They included the US giant EDS, BT Global Services and PA Consulting. "While companies involved in these projects must take some of the blame it would be a mistake to ignore the role of poor planning and mismanagement by government departments," the group's report states."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)