I'm reading her book The Silent State at the moment, which is a real eye-opener.

Peter Mandelson is rushing to force the Digital Economy Bill into law before the General Election.

The draconian law is opposed by industry experts, internet service providers (like TalkTalk and BT), web giants including Google, Yahoo and Ebay and even the British Library. Despite all this opposition, the Government is trying to rush it through quietly just before the election without proper debate – without a chance for us to voice our opposition. Email your MP now and urge them to stop the government rushing this law through.

There’s plenty to oppose in the Digital Economy Bill, it gives the government the ability to disconnect millions. Schools, libraries and businesses could see their connection cut if their pupils, readers of customers infringe any copyright. But one group likes it, the music industry. In a leaked memo a few days ago they admitted the only way to get the bill through would be to rush it through without a real parliamentary debate. Let’s stop that happening.

Write to your MP now urging them to stop the Government rushing the bill through. It’ll take you less than 2 minutes. Just enter your postcode above (so we can find your MP) and click “participate” to get started.

 

 

UK government data provided by GovEval.

Schools 'break law' to spy on pupils

Pupils are monitored by CCTV cameras as frequently as inmates in prisons and passengers at airports, research shows

• Jessica Shepherd
• guardian.co.uk, Monday 15 March 2010 14.19 GMT
• Article history

Young people are being stripped of basic liberties, says researcher. Photograph: Alamy

 

Most schools in the UK are probably breaking the law by failing to alert students to the scores of cameras capturing their conversations and movements in playgrounds and classrooms, a study has claimed.

Cory Doctorow at 10:16 PM March 11, 2010

The Olympics are coming to London, so our civil liberties are going out the window: because nothing epitomises the spirit of global competition and cooperation like corporate bullying and unfettered truncheon-waving.

Police will have powers to enter private homes and seize posters, and will be able to stop people carrying non-sponsor items to sporting events.

"I think there will be lots of people doing things completely innocently who are going to be caught by this, and some people will be prosecuted, while others will be so angry about it that they will start complaining about civil liberties issues," Chadwick said.

"I think what it will potentially do is to prompt a debate about the commercial nature of the Games. Do big sponsors have too much influence over the Games?"

Eyes turn to "value for money" London 2012 (Thanks, Bobby!)

(Image: More Riot Police a Creative Commons Attribution photo from Kashklick's photostream)

While catching up on local news, I was shocked to read that a school near my home town of Worcester has installed CCTV in the children's toilets.

I wasn't shocked that it happened, because I have read so many stories recently about people in low level positions of authority who assume they have a 'right to spy' that trumps any else's right to privacy. What shocked me was the headline itself. It didn't say "Headmaster arrested for installing CCTV in children's toilets", or "Headmaster resigns after being caught installing CCTV in children's toilets." It didn't even say "Headmaster apologises after installing CCTV in children's toilets." Instead the headline was a plain and unadorned "Chelmsley Wood school puts CCTV in pupil toilets."

It's time for us to decide what sort of world we want our children to grow up in. Do we want them to learn by example that privacy is not a basic human right, or a guiding principle that the law proudly upholds, but a forgotten dream? Or is it time to say enough is enough?

We are in danger of sleepwalking into a surveillance state. The school may not have broken any law, but that does not mean that we must accept this as just the latest step in the unstoppable erosion of our right to privacy. I believe it means that a law that sets reasonable, clearly defined limits on this sort of spying is long overdue. Unless we have that law, we will be powerless against the likes of Steve Chase, chief executive of Grace Academy, and his omnipresent cameras. He said, with no hint of sarcasm that the Sunday Mercury mentioned in their report, that the cameras were fitted 'due to health and safety concerns'.

I believe that we need to protect our children from the likes of Steve Chase. If you believe that too, then it's time to vote Pirate.

Schneier: CCTVs don't make us safer

By Cory Doctorow at 5:12 AM February 26, 2010

Bruce Schneier has written an outstanding essay for CNN on why sticking CCTV cameras on every corner doesn't make us safer, and can make us less safe by opening us up to abuse, and by causing police resources to be misallocated. This is required reading for the twenty-first century. Bruce points out that where there's a specific threat in a specific place -- casinos worried about cheats, shops worried about shoplifters, parking garages worried about skulking muggers -- CCTVs have some use. But as a catch-all solution to crime, they just don't work well enough to justify their expense in resources and liberty.

Pervasive security cameras don't substantially reduce crime. This fact has been demonstrated repeatedly: in San Francisco, California, public housing; in a New York apartment complex; in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; in Washington; in study after study in both the U.S. and the U.K. Nor are they instrumental in solving many crimes after the fact.

There are exceptions, of course, and proponents of cameras can always cherry-pick examples to bolster their argument. These success stories are what convince us; our brains are wired to respond more strongly to anecdotes than to data. But the data are clear: CCTV cameras have minimal value in the fight against crime.

Although it's comforting to imagine vigilant police monitoring every camera, the truth is very different, for a variety of reasons: technological limitations of cameras, organizational limitations of police and the adaptive abilities of criminals. No one looks at most CCTV footage until well after a crime is committed. And when the police do look at the recordings, it's very common for them to be unable to identify suspects. Criminals don't often stare helpfully at the lens and -- unlike the Dubai assassins -- tend to wear sunglasses and hats. Cameras break far too often.

Spy cameras won't make us safer