Voting TaKtiX

I wish to offer a definitions of one aspect of privacy in order that I can try and explain some ideas on the nature of personal privacy without tying myself in knots. I’d also appreciate some comments about this, should anybody wish to offer their ideas on personal privacy.

The definition I’ll put forward may as well be called ‘It’s none of your business’ Privacy. I hold that this is the basic definition of privacy that most people carry with them on a day to day basis. To give an example, the reason why we don’t condone government tracking of individuals on CCTV is not that we don’t recognise the potential benefits of this monitoring, but that the government has no business tracking individuals without just cause. It’s a basic level of privacy which is pretty easy to grasp; as far as we can be said to have ‘freedom to’ this is it - it is private if it doesn’t effect anyone else, and because it doesn’t effect any else, it shouldn’t be available to anyone else.

The interesting thing about this type of privacy is that we are quite willing to have it broken. We do accept that banks have a right to monitor our spending for our mutual financial security, and we also accept that should it become necessary, such information should be turned over to the relevant authorities - obvious example being the police should our finances come into question.

The real issue of privacy therefore is when this definition is surpassed. Such examples follow on from the previous definition in that it indicates a breach of the trust we place in organisations to hold our data, or pay too much attention to our everyday lives. To continue from the analogy above, it’s fine for our bank to monitor our spending habits, but it becomes a breach of privacy should the bank pass this information on to a market research company - it’s none of their business to have access to that data.

This seems to be becoming a more and more important definition as our personal information become more readily available from many different sources. Individually, we are quite happy for different organisations to have access to some parts of our data, but collating this information without just cause is a breach of privacy. It’s not that we don’t want the information out there, but that it shouldn’t be misused.

To give a contemporary example, take ID cards. It’s not that the information contained in the card will be ‘new’ information - it is only a collection of information held elsewhere after all. The real issue is that there is no reason for this information to be collated in one place, no need for one organisation to have easy access to all the data. It’s not their business to have this information, so it shouldn’t be accepted.

Anyway, there’s lots to say about privacy and I’ve only touched the surface because my mind keeps going off an tangents and it’s difficult to keep things coherent. I’m particularly interested in where consent comes into the whole thing and whether the fact that we tacitly consent to being filmed on CCTV or logged at ATMs is really enough to justify some of the uses of the information that then occur. I really dislike the ‘if you’ve got nothing to hide’ argument, which prompts me to think that there is something inherently wrong with our being tracked, although as it doesn’t really affect our privacy unless it’s abused, is it really an issue?

But then do we really know what happens to most of the data collected about us? Maybe the real issue is clarity, and privacy would be a much easier issue to discuss if we actually knew what was and what wasn’t known about our private lives.

Any takers?

Haven’t waded through the lists yet, but checking a few news sources I saw the LibDem newsfeed had this one up; Liberal Democrats : Ashdown heads political honours: (more…)

Right, awhileback I started tagging stuff because it was easy and I was hoping it would give an easy blogsearch method. Naturally, Google’s built in blogsearch doesn’t pick up on the tags properly. Completely forgot that Technorati does. So, I go look at my profile, add in the journal, and then note that there’s a weird looking tag… Technorati Tag: Philosphy. Oops. Not once, but twice, I’ve misspelled it. Gah! The scary thing is, knock out my username in the search, and it’s not an uncommon mistake. d’oh! More post editing for me to do. Tomorrow. Maybe.

Update (Sat 31st 0730): This page itself just got a google hit, the search? philosphy. I give up on spelling correctly, you get more google referrals from typos…

The Times had a nice article on blogging last Friday, I found it rather a link on Perfect’s linklog. It’s not directly about blogging, it’s about blogging in Iran. I would say it’s a nice piece, and overall it is, but, well, a few stupidities stand out.

Farsi is the 28th most spoken language in the world, but it now ties with French as the second most used language in the blogosphere

So, blogs are popular in Iran then? More than anywhere outside the anglophone world? OK, good point.

Internet usage is growing faster in Iran than anywhere in the Muslim Middle East, and there are now more blogs in Farsi than in German, Italian, Spanish, Russian or Chinese.

Um, Ben? You’ve made that point two paragraphs up. Nice to see you being consistent, but isn’t it sloppy writing to make the same point twice?

Like all blogs they can also be self-indulgent, inaccurate, inarticulate and boring

Why yes, yes they can. Some blogs are inaccurate and boring. Same as some newspaper columnists, for example. However, in that entire paragraph, that’s the only judgement you make on blogs. They can be innaccurate, inarticulate, self-indulgent and boring. But, like all media forms, they can also be articulate, well informed, accurate and interesting. You have to filter them, and figure out the difference between the two.

In a similar way to how your avarage punter chooses the newspaper they read. There are good blogs, and awful ones, inane ones, personal ones and intensely political ones. The beauty is, we can write when we feel like, about what we feel like, and we don’t need to filter our writing to suit the owner of the paper. Of course, Mr Murdoch wouldn’t ever influence your editorial opinion, would he Ben?

We know the MSN is catching on. It’s a shame though that, for the most part, they still don’t wuite get the point. Freedom of expression, without censorship, and with the ability to push the boundaries. For example, D-notices are voluntarily enforced by the newspaper establishment, which up until a few years ago, meant we simply didn’t learn about the story. Now? It’s not just Iranians taking advantage of freedom of expression.

After my post yesterday, it appears most of the UK and now US political blogs are picking up the story, and it’s also made the Independent (albeit without the details, they’re reporting the fuss, not the actual documents). However, Craig Murray’s site is down, and according to Tim, it’s not server overload.

In the meantime, as his site syndication feed is full not partial, Livejournal has the entire post in its archive . It’ll be there for 2 weeks. Let’s see what the next reaction is.

Lenin is risking jail in publishing some of the documents the FCO is trying to suppress about HMGs use of information gained through torture. The evidence he posts is pretty conclusive.

Two documents in particular are being suppressed, because the FCO has instructed Mr Murray not to include them in his new book and to hand over all copies - fortunately, however, they have already made their way into the public domain by some means. And I, of course, have received no instructions from any official. Here they are

I don’t know how long he’ll be able to keep it online, I’m not 100% sure what he’s doing is a crime (not a lawyer after all), but, well, go look anyway.

Really? I mean, who is that supposed to help? It sure doesn’t look good for the image of Bob Geldof to be associated with a conservative, predominantly right-wing party having been so venomously anti-capitalist in the past, and it doesn’t exactly look brilliant for the Tories, who surely know look to be jumping on the cool band wagon supplied by ‘hipster’ Dave.

There must be people better suited to helping the Tories develop sound policy on global policy - people, say, who have done real research into it or dealt with the issue in the past. Hell, there might even be some Tories around who remember dealing with it last time they were in power. Bob Geldof is an important mouthpiece for the cause, that’s for sure, but that doesn’t mean he really understands the issue any more than anybody else.

And anyway, is Geldof not somewhat of a busted flush after the lacklustre legacy of Live 8? The biggest of the big promises certainly didn’t happen to the extent that Geldof and co. assured us they would, and by and the large the event slipped into the ether with barely an acknowledging nod from those with the power to really change anything. It’s not like I’m the first person to notice that or anything either - criticism of Geldof has been pretty widespread almost everywhere in some form or another.

Note to the Tories - New, Fresh, Cool - all good. Grasping - not so good. They’ll be wearing personalised baseball caps next…

Must check DeadBrain more often…
Lib Dems for Boris Johnson:

“I’m appealing to all LibDem voters, councillors and MPs because I’m eccentric and I wear sandals.”

Don’t tend to write about Iraq on here. Not because I don’t care, not because I don’t have an opinion, not because I don’t know much about it; I do, for all of the above. But because it’s happened, it’s an ongoing mess, and we simply have to accept that our ofrces are stuck there, and hope that, in the long term, things work out. For that to happen, of course, we’d need a political leadership that is prepared to admit to reality.

I opposed the war. Not because war is bad (I supported the Afghan intervention -something I’d been pushing for since before the Taliban took power, long before they became entrenched or gave support to AQ- and had been argueing for a Yugoslav intervention since it sparked off in Slovenia). Not because I felt the war was an imperialistic exercise in pursuit of oil (it was, in a way, but that isn’t why it happened), but because it was being done at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons, by the wrong people and without any follow up plan. Curious Hamster has an exceptional post up detailing his opinions, and it simply has to be promoted (I went there via DK):

With intelligent well informed leaders and thorough and careful planning, the coalition might have had a chance at achieving some of the goals they set out for Iraq in March 2003. But it was clear in early 2003 that there was a distinct lack of thorough and careful planning and that the coalition were going to make a frightful mess of the occupation as a result. It was clear that the coalition had no plans for peace in Iraq but only plans for war. It was clear that a section of Iraqi society would attempt to achieve a religious Shiite dominated government and it was clear that Iran would attempt to support them in that endeavour. It was clear that the coalition had not planned for this. In those circumstances, what’s happening in Iraq today was inevitable. It needn’t have been.

The leaders who got it so wrong need to be held to account.

He’s right. Hussein was an evil nasty tyrant who should have been removed from power years ago. But by going in without a longterm plan, without the support of opposition movements in Iraq, without any real understanding of the situation on the ground within the populace, we (as in The West) have created a mess that will take years to recover from.

The important thing, now, is to learn from the mistakes, to move on wiser, and determined that, if we intervene overseas again (and, like I’ve said above, I’m no isolationist), we do so for the right reasons, with local support, and with a plan post ‘victory’. Bush had none of these things. Blair, at least, always tried to also bring out the ‘nasty tyrant’ argument as well as the false WMDs. At times, it is necessary to intervene to stop a greater evil. But if it happens, that evil must both be widely acknowledged, fully understood, and other options have to have been exhausted. In the US, there are moves to impeach Bush being discussed by some. That’s an issue for the Americans to resolve themselves.

For me, it’s just another reason to dislike the NuLab spin machine that’s in power, lest we forget, with the lowest vote share and lowest turnout out since 1945.

This had never occured to me:

The convicted terrorist Peter Hain is annoyed that the Tories are opposing Labour’s amnesty to some terrorists. We’re entitled to opposition support,” pouted Mr Hain, before stamping his little feet and threatening to take his ball home. Mr Hain wants to push through complete forgiveness for on-the-run bombers who did their dirty deeds before April 1998. They won’t have to appear in court, they won’t have to acknowledge their crimes. The Conservatives might wish to point to South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which offered an amnesty from prosecution to people who told the complete truth about their part in that country’s civil war. But Mr Hain doesn’t like to be reminded about South Africa, because he led the small group of renegades who stopped the South African cricket tour in 1970, and was convicted of various public order offences. Under the laws that his party has passed, this would be a terrorist act.

Wonder if anyone has pointed that out to him directly?

Was planning to do a post on mis uses of the term ‘multiculturalism’ (by both sides), but Robert Sharp has done a pretty good one already:

Communities living side-by-side, not integrating, becoming ghettos, that in turn become no-go areas for the police and ordinary citizens. Cultures and ethnicities living side-by-side without integration or communication is not what I would call multiculturalism… just antagonism. Multiculturalism has to imply a certain degree of integration, assimilation, and above all, a process of change for it to be something to value.

To me, multiculturalism is the ability to have a friend who’s muslim, another who’s jewish and to chase after a girl whose grandmother came from Africa. We learn from those who move here, just as they learn from us, we take on board the bits we like, condemn the bits we dislike (forced marriages anyone?) and the new communities do the same with us. Eventually, they merge together, so differences in religion mean as little to us as the differences in denomination now do mostly everywhere (except Northen Ireland of course).

This vegetarian isn’t likely to be buying a kebad any time soon, but my local Thai place does a damn fine tofu based thing I can’t pronounce. I like that. Still can’t figure out how to cook the stuff though…

Well, I’ve been thinking of something to write all day, and fiddling with the template a bit. Opening up a random post to see what it looked like, I found this from Gary: (more…)

I just had another look at the referral logs. Most of our Google and MSN hits are for stuff related to the blog and the topic. Most of them. They’re normally pretty distinct one offs for various different things. But there’s one that keeps cropping up, discussed here. It’s a pretty popular google hit, and we’re fairly highly ranked because of it, just because of the way I worded the title. I just went back and edited the post, in a fit of generosity, pointing people at Andrew Rilstone, because, well, he writes about that place a lot. Note I’m not naming it on this post.

Just goes to show that you can get page views for the weirdest off the cuff comments. Maybe I should move industries, become an SEO, I’m better at it than most pros I’ve had contact with. Ah well. G’night all.

I just lost a huge, almost finished post on constitutional reform, the England problem, devolution and other issues. I’d put in links, to my previous posts and elsewhere, and even typed up some definitions from some reference books I’d dug out. Then I accidentally hit ctrl+w instead of shift+w. Firefox, of course, closes the window when you do that.

Bugger

It was turning into quite a good post as well. So, short recap. ‘Athelstan‘? I looked up the definition of statist in my Oxford Concise. In the words of Inigo Montoya, you keep using that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means. I’ve made it very clear in the three months blogging here that I’m a decentraliser, an opponent of state control, in favour of individual choices. I utterly oppose the NuLab nanny state centralising statists.

I happen to disagree with you on a solution to a problem that we both recognise. But if instead of engaging in rational debate you want to simply throw insults around, then fine. I’ll debate with those you agree with that actually want to engage in a discussion.

To Gareth/JohnJo; the post that got eaten contained a summary of my views on solving the England issue. Not all of them, not fully explained, but the summary was long enough. I also explained a little about the rationale behind the blog and why I can’t just concentrate on devolution on it’s own, it’s all linked to the other problems with the current British constitution, some created by NuLab, others in existence for years.

But, essentially, my main target is the nanny state tendencies of NuLab, and building an anti-Labour coalition to get them out at the next election. That’s what I’m primarily always going to blog about.

Yes, the current devolution settlement is anything but a settlement. Yes, Prescott is the worst person in the world to be trying to fix it. Yes, I want to discuss it, I want to put forward ideas. But as part of a larger settlement, a big issue solution. Oppose NuLabour first. Ensure that we don’t stop the world and get off second. Sort the constitution out third. I can rage against Labour. I frequently do. I can rant and reason in favour of international engagement and building partnerships and consensus. But constitutional reform?

That requires a more refined approach, a reasoned discussion. I need to be in the mood. Blogging is a hobby, a catharsis. When NuLab makes me angry, I blog easily. When I want to really make a case, I can do it. Today, I was in the mood to explain some of my reasons for looking for a different answer.

Oh yeah; I have problems taking anything at all completely seriously, even things I care passionately about. The name of the blog is part of that sense of humour, I tend to use little-englander as a shortcut for the “disgusted of Tunbridge Wells” type, that doesn’t like anything they don’t understand. To me, the ‘little england’ mentality is an island state anti foreigner approach. It’s nothing, really, to do with the idea of an English Parliament, although some little englanders are undoubtedly also in favour of english nationalism, of a distinctly non-civic nature. As always, the ranting bigots do ‘their’ cause more a disservice than any argument against it ever can.

Bloody keyboard shortcuts. Ah well. Another time. G’night all, Happy Yuletide.

A few blogs have been talking selection policis for schools recently, and, as a former grammar school kid living in an area that still uses grammar schools, I thought I’d give an opinion. It may surprise the flag wavers in favour of them to know that I think they’re a bloody stupid idea. Meaders has the right idea;Dead Men Left: “Destroy every fucking grammar school in the country”:

This missing 75% is rather strange: where are all those former secondary modern pupils demanding a return to selection? If, as the meritocrats claim, the 11-plus is so clearly a superior system, why are not more of these (doubtless) happy, contented failures, secure in their particular places, beseeching the government to deliver more grammar schools?

Grammar schools give a false perception of success. They select at 11, and get good results at 16. Those results look good, of course, because the kids they’ve got in there are judged, by one form of measure, to be smarter, so naturally they’ll do ‘well’. At least, at academic subjects. They also create a false view that only academic success is important; I’m pretty good academically (lazy bastard, but pretty good), but absolutely useless when it comes to, for example, fixing a car.

Students at a grammar are filtered towards academia, thou shalt attend University. Even if its innapropriate or you’d be better at a more practical skill. Those that ‘fail’ their 11+ are encouraged, and expected, to go on to those ‘vocational’ courses, even if they would actually be better served on an academic course. I got worse GCSE results than my younger sister two years later, but she ‘failed’ her 11+. My school pushed me to A levels, and then on to a crappy degree (despite being obviously wrong for me at the time, it was good for their statistics you see; they don’t record first term drop outs, only that you got a place at university). Her school pushed her to train to be a secretary. Naturally, she’s worked hard, and now earns much more than I, despite the incomplete education, but she is now hitting a glass ceiling wherein lack of a degree is causing her problems. Grammar schools fail people. Secondary moderns fail people. One size fits all comprehensives fail people if they insist on mixed ability classes.

I’m always bothered when people push for parental ‘choice’ in education. If you live in an area such as I do, you don’t really have much choice, there are a small number of local schools. Add in selection, then the choice is even less, you go where you’re accepted. What’s wrong with the idea that all schools should be good schools?

What’s wrong with the idea that someone good at maths may be poor at English, and therefore streaming and ability sets worked by subject may be a necessary tool?

Why do we value the academic over the mechanic, the lawyer over the plumber? And why do people seek to constantly bring back a system that palpably isn’t good for anyone involved except those that are academic and pass the 11+?

Here’s a turn up for the books; an elephant going to quickly. Charles Clarke is getting flack from the Association of Polica Authorities because he wants them to write detailed plans in response to another NuLab centralising scheme at pretty short notice.They really are not happy:

“Police authorities have unanimously rejected the home secretary’s plans to force these proposals through with indecent haste, and we believe there are also credible alternative options which should be considered very seriously.”

Some of them are happy to merge (fair enough, Suffolk and Norfolk are currently separate, but would happily work together, living under Devon and Cornwall for most of my life, two counties working together isn’t too big), others specifically want to stay as they are (50% of those so far stating a preference). But, essentially, they want them to merge because:

Mr Clarke believes the force mergers will lead to more efficient police forcing, helping to combat terrorism and organised crime.

Hmm, prevent serious organised crime and terrorism. Is that the sort of serious organised crime that causes people to be arrested for reading?

There’s a good argument to be made that big problems need combined resources. Fine, let them combine resources, let them work together. But don’t merge them completely; the whole point of British policing is it’s local, not national. Centralise those bits that need it, but leave the local forces as they are. Those that are too small may need to merge, but others are about right currently.

New Labour: centralising everything for your ’safety’ and ’security’.

Not my favoured form of blogging, but that nice Mr Tim posted a link to this post by one Neil Craig, who is complaining that he’s been expelled by the Scottish Lib Dems. Except, um, he hasn’t:

Yesterday I received the following letter, without any warning whatsoever

Mr Craig? I’ve read through bits of your frontpage, and I’ve read the letter you’ve put up. You can read, I hope? You’re able to tell the difference between one action and another? Oh good.

Y’see, you’re complaining that you’ve had “no warning”. Except, the thing is, the letter is the warning. (more…)

OK, many many posts on Europe in a row not good for my sanity, but it’s only fair to link to Chris’ critique of part of my ideas. However, I’m not sure Chris has understood exactly what I’m getting at, probably as I haven’t explained myself properly. It’s not opposition to China specifically, nor Russia, India or the US. It’s the recognition that over the next 50 years, these will be the dominant power blocks. It’s going to be either this, multipolar world, or a unipolar world, with the US as the dominant hyperpower. I’m not sure what is the most likely of the two, but I am pretty sure one or the other is very likely compared to other possible futures.
(more…)

Oh my. Everyone’s favourite Parliament insiders working together?

I was going to write up my reasons for wanting a Europe of some form exist. My reasons for wanting Britain to be a significant, constructive part of the reform process. As I started, I got a comment notification. John’s pretty much done it for me:

In a century’s time the world’s big powers are likely to be huge states like the US, China and India. Britain alone will have little economic or political clout in a world that works on that scale - how could it? Keeping all national sovereignty at Westminster will count for little the UK is too feeble to do anything with that sovereignty.

By pooling sovereignty in certain areas - particularly economically - with our allies, we could make ourselves stronger: we won’t always get our way, but when we do it’ll count for more.
(more…)