Thursday, 15 November 2012

CCDP updates.

I left some things off yesterday's post, because it was already way too long to hold the attention span of the average internet goldfish. Here we go, then:

Jenny McCartney in the Telegraph opposes the CCDP and calls out Theresa May's claim that total digital surveillance is needed to stop pedophilia. May cited the recently uncovered Rochdale pedophile ring as 'evidence' in favor of bringing in CCDP, but since that was uncovered without CCDP, it's difficult to see how.

I'm also glad to see someone else (who has many millions more readers than me) recognizing the irony of CCDP being drafted during the Leveson Inquiry:
There is a monstrous irony in all this, unfurling as it is under the shadow of the Leveson inquiry. For what were the conditions at the News of the World which led to such inexcusable invasions of privacy? A top-down pressure to get “results”, the absence of outside scrutiny, and a gradual process whereby invasive, unethical methods were increasingly used for trivial purposes.
This is the first time I have seen the connection made in big media. Has Ms McCartney been reading the Chronicles ...?

The police are toeing the same line as May - that surveillance is a panacea in the fight against crime. But if that were true, the United Kingdom would already have the lowest crime rate in the world, or at least among developed nations, given that it is the most surveilled. This is not the case (data from 2010):
England and Wales were above average for rape, robbery, burglary and car theft and below average for intentional homicide and ‘major assault’:
  • 14th out of 34 countries for homicide.
  • 8th out of 34 for rape.
  • 6th out of 34 for robbery.
  • 17th out of 28 for major assault.
  • 5th out of 34 for burglary.
  • 7th out of 33 for car theft.
Compared with our peers, the report shows that we are a high-crime society.
Also keep in mind that the police have previously admitted that rampant CCTV surveillance has failed to cut crime.

Apparently, the CCDP contains plans for physical mail to be surveilled too, including the content of postcards:
The draft Bill is clear:

“postal item” means—
(a) any letter, postcard or other such thing in writing as may be used by the sender for imparting information to the recipient, or

(b) any packet or parcel,

and for the purposes of this definition “data”, in relation to a postal item, includes anything written on the outside of the item.”
So, communications data includes anything written on the outside of the item – which in the case of postcards is, well, the content of the message.

This goes against both assurances that there were no plans to read messages, and also the claim this is about the ability to track internet communications.

Already the detail of the bill in unraveling. We were told this was about new technology and yet buried in the detail are powers to track the postcards and letters we send.
Finally, here's a good timeline from Wired, which traces the origins of the IMP/CCDP back to 2001, and the 'need' for increased surveillance following 9/11. The timeline includes choice phrases from the lying shits Cameron and Clegg as they pretend to be aghast at the IMP while in opposition.

We're not done with this, not by a long way.

- Mojo

No comments:

Post a Comment