December 23, 2005

Privacy Issues: One Step Closer to 1984

Ah Mr Orwell what a profit you were! The UK appears adamant in leading the world in monitoring its citizenry as can be seen by this latest Article Here

Mark my words it wont be long before they want US to wear tags so they can track our every move. Oh I just so need all this protection dont I? NOT!

Mark.

Posted by Mark at 2:12 AM | Comments (0) | Privacy Issues | TrackBack

November 17, 2005

Privacy Issues: No Wonder Governments want control!

This paragraph Here sums up why Governments want control of the internet!

"This line however crumbled when bloggers (whose influence must not be under-estimated these days) ferreted out an article published by the US Army's Field Artillery Magazine in its issue of March/April this year."

Governments lie on occasion when it suits them and secrets and lies dont stay secrets for long these days. So im not suprised governments dont like it :) Talking about this article One must not forget the hypocrisy of modern warfare. Most all of these rules are only in place to make war more palatable to non combatents. War IS about killing more of the enemy than he kills of you. And there is nothing like a war to boost jobs and justify a MASSIVE military budget now is there! Oil anyone?

Mark.

Posted by Mark at 8:23 AM | Comments (0) | Privacy Issues | TrackBack

November 16, 2005

Privacy Issues: Who gets Control

So the worlds men in suits are meeting in Tunisia of all places) to discuss who owns the internet!

Of course the Neo Cons want it :) But then they want everything dont they! The Chinese want it just so they can trash it and prevent any of us getting anything meanigfull out of it at all. The Europeans? Well they never seem to know what they want these days do they :( Apart from Blair pleasing Bush that is!

Posted by Mark at 11:17 AM | Comments (0) | Privacy Issues | TrackBack

October 11, 2005

Privacy Issues: Who gets control of the internet?

I guess it should be no suprise to free thinking men that the men in dark suits that run the US want to Control this internet of ours!

Personally I have to agree with the Europeans on this one. No one country should have autonomy over the world wide web (least of all the fanatical bushite neocons) If anything it should be the Brits as it was their invention afterall :) (only joking)

Mark.

Posted by Mark at 9:47 AM | Comments (1) | Privacy Issues | TrackBack

February 24, 2005

Privacy Issues: Tony Blair the despot!

Tony Blair (2005):

"There is no greater civil liberty than to live free from terrorist attack".

Benjamin Franklin (1755):

"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

So yet again under the guise of protecting us from the nasty terrorits types the UK are passing yet more laws to remove freedom from the citizen!

Mark...

PS
Please dont respond with the lame "Im not a terrorist so it does not affect me" speach :) It does affect you it affects all of us!

Posted by Mark at 1:03 PM | Comments (0) | Privacy Issues | TrackBack

February 15, 2005

Privacy Issues: Show me Your papers!

February 10th, 2005 may go down in history as the final coup de grace for privacy in America.

On that date, the US House of Representatives voted overwhelming for a bill that will force every US person with "any" state driver's license to have it converted into what amounts to a national identity card.

Papers please!

Welcome to America's police state where you will be required by law, and under severe penalty, to carry your "papers." In 2004 the United States Supreme Court ruled that failure to identify yourself to police is grounds for your arrest and probable cause for a search without any warrant!

This privacy stealing bill calls for electronically readable drivers licenses to contain amongst other things:

* Biometric recorded information
* Your blood type
* Your DNA
* Your fingerprints
* Your eye scans
* Your, medical, family and personal histories.

US passports with all of the above features (plus a few hidden goodies like tracking chips,) are forthcoming within months.

Worse, it has been ascertained that these cards cannot protect privacy and is subject to identity theft.

As usual and under false pretense, the government Terrocrats are using the excuse of anti-terrorism, and are forging full steam ahead.

Please note that hardly anyone in the US government and the US mainstream press bothers to point out, that in spite of the fact that Spain has had ID cards mandatory for many years now for all citizens and residents, terrorist bombings occur on a regular basis, even in the capital of Madrid!

Mr Orwell you were so RIGHT!

Mark...

Posted by Mark at 1:16 PM | Comments (7) | Privacy Issues | TrackBack

January 12, 2005

Hitler and Ryan Air

Now I'll bet that title got you huh :) I shall attempt to explain the connection :)

Just the other day I watched the new movie about Hitler, very good I thought, although not much I didnt know already being a student of history like I am. Yes the man was a complete Psycho.

I was particularly struck though by the end sequences where Hitler stands up and explains why the people need to lose all of their freedoms so the state can protect them against the nasty terrorist types that had just burned down the reichstag :) Trust us we know best! Quite poignent that it was Hitlers cronies who burnt it down but there you go! This made my thoughts drift back to when I caught my flight the week before from Linz to the UK. There was a small notice at check-in that said

"All passengers flying to the USA must SUBMIT to having their fingerprints taken and a photgraph on entry. If you do not want to SUBMIT to this then do not board the plane."

I then thought about the Patriot act (nice term that) And how much it mirrors the so called protections that Hitler put in place in his day, all for the sake of protecting the masses from the nasty terrorist types! Not to mention the UK act that allows foriegn nationals to be imprisoned without trial if they are suspected of being or having terrorist associations!

Personally I have absolutly nothing against Americans God bless em all :) Hell I even have relatives in Vermount (nice pretty place) And I thoroughly enjoyed my vist to SF when I was in battlebots and really did like the peoples outward friendliness towards me.

But I would not now travel to the land of the FREE! Simply on principle that I do not want to be treated like a potential criminal and I also do not trust governments with my data, yes the data that is sent to the US concerning all the passengers on the plane flying in. I dont like Spam myself and this data will build a massive database of ALL the people traveling to the US and then be used to market with among other possibly more sinister things!

You do NOT protect people by limiting their FREEDOMS and monitoring their every move. You achieve exactly what Hitler achieved in his day. Fear and more Fear, less and less Freedom.

To my American readers.

Your constitution was won through the blood sweat and tears of very brave men (and women) by fighting us Brits and kicking us out :) I would not be so hasty in letting it be so watered down!

Mark...

PS
On pain of death I have been forced to ammend my post! Her indoors is a keen horse lover and wants to visit Monty Roberts at his ranch for a Horse Whispering holiday. So I can stamp me feet all I like. I can postulate and formulate and come up with the best philosophical arguments I can imagine to cement my position!

But guys my post post was in error it's the women who hold all the power! Yes dear just packing what time is the flight!

Mark..

Humbled by his missus...

Posted by Mark at 1:16 PM | Comments (5) | Privacy Issues | TrackBack

December 4, 2004

How Civil Rights Are Important To Your Life

How Civil Rights Are Important To Your Life
- By A. Somers

Shortly after 9/11 I had a conversation with the apprentice editor on a film I was working on. He made the statement

" I think the government should take away our civil liberties in order to protect us".

I was so stunned by that statement I wasn't even certain how to respond.

Let's try this: He's Korean/American. We're having problems in our relationships with North Korea right now. It's not too difficult to imagine the possibility of a conflict leading to military action. Now assume that we allowed our government to do away with our civil rights, as he proposes. What will prevent the government from interning him in a camp for the Duration of the conflict with Korea? Nothing.

This is not some far-fetched conjecture. Consider the internment of over one hundred thousand Japanese Americans during World War II. Consider that today, thousands of people have been taken prisoner by the U.S. Government in the war on terror - not charged with any crime, not given access to family, or legal representation - simply imprisoned by the government. No Trial. No due process. Just freedom revoked.

Faced with a tragedy like 9/11, it's very easy to think that

"giving up civil liberties to fight the bad guys"

is a good idea. If you're an honest citizen then there's no reason for you to fear a totalitarian government, right? But that is where an important reality check is in order. If you have no civil rights, then you must rely entirely on the goodness of the government, as well as each and every person in that government, and each and every one of your neighbors.

Without civil liberties what is to prevent a racist cop from inflicting his racism on a target minority? Nothing - as innocent minorities convicted on false testimony can attest.

Without civil liberties what is to prevent your neighbor (that has a grudge against you) from "turning you in to the authorities" for some alleged crime (one you didn't commit, but that he reports anonymously that you did)? Nothing - as many have found, anonymous tips are a
great way to get back at someone you don't like.

Without civil liberties, we are all open to the gravest destruction of our private lives, even if we are the most honest and hardworking of citizens.

If you don't believe that a government unchecked by civil rights is capable of injustice then you need to review history. While it's always easy to bring up the recent past of Nazi Germany, The USSR and the Taliban in Afghanistan, the distant past points to even more serious human rights violations. In fact, it was these excesses of past governments (including the one we freed ourselves of in 1776) that resulted in our forefathers developing the Bill of Rights for our own constitution.

No society can survive and thrive when absolute power is given to the governing body. As the saying goes, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Understanding this premise leads us to the realization that civil liberties are the most precious and frail of rights and must be protected at all costs. Our legacy of civil liberties in this country have been paid for by the blood of our fathers, grand fathers, and great great great great grand fathers. To throw these rights away for the misguided illusion of greater security would be a most serious
crime indeed.

Mark...

This is true in the Uk aswell! Especially as we appear to follow america in everything she does!

Posted by Mark at 3:12 PM | Comments (0) | Privacy Issues | TrackBack

November 19, 2004

America

Damion wins again!!

I want to check his head as he must have a 666 in there somewhere!

You have to give the Yankee's credit for a surprisingly large voter turn out. Whether or not you liked the outcome, it's four more years of Bush et al. In our humble opinion that means the continued and perhaps even more rapid erosion of everyone's civil liberties throughout the world.....

The bottom line, regardless of the reason or excuses like 9/11, is
that civil liberties under the Bush and Blair (UK) administrations
have eroded dramatically and intentionally. Any rational thinking
person has to admit that FACT, REGARDLESS of the reasons for the
erosion. Historically, once civil liberties and freedoms are taken
away, one NEVER gets them back, unless the people rise up and
overthrows the government, the government is overthrown by outside
forces as what happened with Nazi Germany, Japan and more recently
Iraq, or self destructs like what happened to The Roman Empire and the
former Soviet Union.

History repeats itself. This will most assuredly happen to Amerika
one day. Amerika will cease to be the world sole super power.
Perhaps not in our lifetime, but sooner rather than later. China is
set to become (at today's current growth rate,) the number one
economic power in less than 50 years. If you look BACK 50 years,
America NEVER won the Korean war because of China's intervention, and
that was more than 50 years ago! Communist China has become an
economic power whether or not anyone likes that fact.

We have already seen Amerika cow towing to communist China with
America's appeasing attitude towards North Korea. How can the US go
to war in Iraq where there were no known WMD, when North Korea
admitted they had not only ordinary weapons of mass destruction, but
NUCLEAR bombs?

The united States (correct spelling,) under Bush has boxed itself into
a corner. It declared war on the Axis of evil, invaded Iraq and is
now wallowing in its own misery, bogged down in nasty quagmire
(terrorist) war in Iraq because of inept pre and post war planning.

In addition Iran has admitted to having nuclear weapons. What is the
US to do, invade both North Korea and Iran? Then where next to invade
and liberate the people? Sudan and ???

What this all means is that by America exerting its policies
worldwide, whether they are right or wrong, our civil liberties will
continue to be affected in a negative manner.

We wish our American friends well during the next four years. We
trust that Bush et al rethink their past mistakes and work towards a
genuine world peace. Only time will tell, but based on its past
record, things aren't looking so good for the Yankees overseas.

Thanks to PT

Mark...

lets hope labour dont win again in the UK! Still if UKIP dont sort themselves out what are we left with! The bloody torys again and another 30 years of ripping the railways up only to rebuild it all!!! ha ha

Posted by Mark at 9:30 AM | Comments (0) | Privacy Issues

October 12, 2004

Uk id cards

Blunkett changes ID card scheme
- BBC NEWS

Plans to combine new compulsory identity cards with passports and
driving licences have been dropped by Home Secretary David Blunkett.
The changes to the controversial scheme comes in response to MPs who
said the plans were badly thought out.

"You will have no choice but to spend GBP35 on a stand-alone ID card,
on top of a GBP73 charge for the passport."
- Mark Oaten Lib Dem spokesman

Mr Blunkett also promised to allow the whole scheme to be overseen by
a new independent watchdog.

The legislation to allow ID cards is widely expected to be promised in
next month's Queen's Speech.

The Home Office's official response to the Commons home affairs select
committee inquiry into the project said: "When cost, implementation
and risk considerations are assessed together, we now think the option
of a free-standing card is more attractive."

The new cards will include "biometric" details of each cardholder,
such as their fingerprints, an electronic scan of the dimensions of
their face or a scan of the iris of their eye.

Approved agencies will be able to check those details against a
central database.

Phased in

The government believes the cards will help combat illegal immigration
and working, terrorism and identity fraud.

Benefits to the public, the Home Office says, will include people not
having to worry about using driving licences, passports or bank
statements to prove their identity.

If they are introduced they will be the first national ID since the
Second World War ones ended more than 50 years ago.

They will be phased in - people will get them at the same time as they
renew or get a passport - and eventually be compulsory to have, though
not to carry.

The Home Office had originally planned to phase in ID cards from
2007-2008 by bringing in new passports which would include a microchip
bearing biometric data and would double-up as ID cards.

Instead, passport applicants from 2007-2008 will get a new biometric
passport and a separate ID card.

"The majority preference in research was that the ID card should be a
separate document," a Home Office spokesman said.

Creating a single organisation to implement the scheme would also
improve accountability and possibly be cheaper, he added.

Costs hike?

John Denham, Labour chairman of the home affairs select committee,
said the changes made it more likely the "essential scheme" would
succeed, although further work on the details and costs was still
needed.

There would have to be careful scrutiny of the aims of the scheme, the
new commissioner's powers and the safeguards against misuse of the
system, said Mr Denham.

"If we can get these areas of the Bill right, the ID card scheme can
be placed on a sound legal footing," he added.

Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten suggested the
biometric technology to be used on the cards was not as foolproof as
the government claimed.

He argued the money would be better spent on more police and better
intelligence efforts against terrorism.

Mr Oaten said the costs of the scheme for the public were going up the
whole time.

But the Home Office said the prices remained unchanged: people would
pay either GBP35 for a stand-alone ID card or GBP77 for a passport and
ID card together.

It was not true to suggest people would be charged twice for the
biometric tests, said a spokesman.

Conservative shadow home secretary David Davis said the Home Office
should be able to introduce effective ID cards which curbed terrorism,
serious crime and the "flood" of illegal immigration as well as being
cost effective.

He added: "If these criteria can be met without sacrificing civil
liberties they should be introduced soon - not in 10 years time. The
terrorist threat is real and is here today."

Mark...

Posted by Mark at 2:52 PM | Comments (0) | Privacy Issues