Armed UK Police Raid House Over Facebook Picture Showing Toy Weapon In Background

One of the reasons Techdirt rails against exaggerated responses to supposed terrorist threats is that it has caused police forces around the world to lose all sense of proportion -- literally, in the case of this UK story from the Daily Mail. 

On Techdirt.

Policing the Function Creep...

Remember how the poor darlings in the UK government absolutely *had to* allow interception of all our online activities so that those plucky PC Plods could maintain their current stunning success rate in their Whirr on Terruh and stuff like that? Well, it seems that things have changed somewhat:

Detectives will be required to consider accessing telephone and internet records during every investigation under new plans to increase police use of communications data.

The policy is likely to significantly increase the number of requests for data received by ISPs and telephone operators.

Just as every investigation currently has to include a strategy to make use of its subjects' financial records, soon CID officers will be trained to always draw up a plan to probe their communications.

The plans have been developed by senior officers in anticipation of the implementation of the Interception Modernisation Programme (IMP), the government's multibillion pound scheme to massively increase surveillance of the internet by storing details of who contacts whom online.

Er, come again? "CID officers will be trained to always draw up a plan to probe their communications"? How does that square with this being a special tool for those exceptional cases when those scary terrorists and real hard naughty criminals are using tricky high-tech stuff like email? Doesn't it imply that we are all terrorist suspects and hard 'uns now?

Police moves to prepare for the glut of newly accessible data were revealed today by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Janet Williams. She predicted always considering communications data will lead to a 20 per cent increase in the productivity of CID teams.

She told The Register IMP had "informed thinking" about use of communications data, but denied the plans gave the lie to the government line that massively increased data retention will "maintain capability" of law enforcement to investigate crime.

Well, Mandy Rice-Davies applies, m'lud...

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca.

Тaking the War against Terror to a New Level...

..of utter, inane stupidity. Here's the grand summing-up of Brown's "new level":

Terrorism threatens the rights that all in this country should hold dear, including the most fundamental human right of all - the right to life. We know that terrorists will keep on trying to strike and that protecting Britain against this threat remains our most important job.

That tired old Blairite trope: the "right to life" as the "the most fundamental human right of all". Except that it's not a *right*: do I have a right to life when I'm suffering from a terminal disease? Do I have a right to life when I'm 123 years old? Do I have a right to life when the Sun explodes? "Right to life": an idiotic meme, which certainly has no "right to life".

What he should have said is this:

This government threatens the rights that all in this country should hold dear, including the most fundamental human right of all - freedom. We know that this government will keep on trying to strike and that protecting Britain against this threat remains your most important job.

Watch Out, There's a Meme About

There's a nasty rash of congruent memes going around government circles: they're all coming up with fiendish new ways to wage the non-existent war on terror, all of which unfortunately involve locking down useful technology.

Here's the latest threat - to us, that is:

The Indian government has set up an inter-ministerial panel to trace the activities of terrorists using Wifi networks. The recent series of blasts which has shattered the Indian subcontinent has been characterised by the culprits sending emails about the bombs via Wifi.

Headed by Advisor (Telecom), the Department of Telecommunication (DoT), and members from the Telecom Engineering Centre, the Ministry of Home, the Intelligence Bureau and the Department of Information Technology, the committee will examine international practices and enforceable ways and means to detect the actual user on a Wifi network. It will then prescribe modifications to existing policies and licences.

The decision is prompted by terrorists hacking into open Wifi networks twice in three months to send mails about the Ahmedabad and Delhi blasts to the media. While admitting the impossibility of obstructing the flow of technology, DoT officials say that its misuse must be checked, according to the Times of India.

Loved that bit about "[w]hile admitting the impossibility of obstructing the flow of technology, DoT officials say that its misuse must be checked" - a classic case of "something must be done; this is something; so we must do it."

How long before other governments start following suit? (Via Andrew Katz.)

Opening a Digital Pandora's Box

This stuff is getting, er, interesting:

There are already whispers circulating that “amended” copies of the BNP member list are doing the rounds on Bitorrent. People are settling scores with neighbours by adding them to a bogus BNP list. The potential for abuse is sky-high.

Yes, indeedy. Imagine what fun people will have in the future distributing similarly erroneous versions of the Compulsory UK DNA database once it's introduced as an indispensable aid in the Fight against Terruh (and then lost along with all the other government databases....)

The Counterproductive Counter-Terrorism Bill

Excellent in-depth analysis of all that is wrong with this deeply-flawed bill here.

First, Catch Your "War on Terror"....

Watch this trick:

The Maryland State Police classified 53 nonviolent activists as terrorists and entered their names and personal information into state and federal databases that track terrorism suspects, the state police chief acknowledged yesterday.

Police Superintendent Terrence B. Sheridan revealed at a legislative hearing that the surveillance operation, which targeted opponents of the death penalty and the Iraq war, was far more extensive than was known when its existence was disclosed in July.

First, create a nebulous threat to the nation; call it something grand like, oh, "war on terror". Pass a set of wide-reaching laws that let you do anything to "fight" it. Then, redefine anyone who opposes you as a "terrorist" (after all, you are in favour of the "war on terror"; they are against you; therefore, they are against the "war on terror", and thus against the country). Apply previously created laws to the hilt.

Voilà! No more opposition. (Via Slashdot.)

We Have Nothing to Fear...

...but fear itself:

Americans' fear of a terrorism could create a mass outbreak of a psychosomatic illness -- even in absence of any real attack -- -- creating a fake epidemic that could overwhelm hospitals attempting to treat any real victims.

Adding to the confusion, the symptoms of a mass pyschogenic illness look much like symptoms of an anthrax attack, avian flu outbreak or chemical attack.

At least that's what the feds warned hospitals in a non-public 2006 communique recently published by the government sunshine site Wikileaks.

So not only does the so-called "war on terrorism" solve nothing, it creates its own problems.

Which is why the only *real* solution is not to be afraid....

War on Terror = War on Thinking

Oh look, you start down the slippery path of declaring war on abstract nouns, and you end up with pusillanimous mindlessness like this:

An 82-year-old woman in Southampton, UK was told she couldn't take photos of an empty wading pool because she might be a paedophile. Because, you know, anything that children touch regularly becomes part of their souls, and if a paedophile looks at those objects, it's just like sexually assaulting a child.

How to Get Rid of the "War on Terror"

Bruce Schneier has some has his usual wise words on the subject of "terror":

Terrorism is a heinous crime, and a serious international problem. It's not a catchall word to describe anything you don't like or don't agree with, or even anything that adversely affects a large number of people. By using the word more broadly than its actual meaning, we muddy the already complicated popular conceptions of the issue. The word "terrorism" has a specific meaning, and we shouldn't debase it.

But, sorry Brucie, it's too late: they've already debased it.

But debasement is a two-edged sword. What we should do now is to use "terrorism" for even the most trivial infraction: "parking terrorism", "litter terrorism", "noise terrorism" - you get the idea. In no time at all, even the politicians will recognise that the whole concept of "terror" has become eviscerated, and risible. The "War on Terror" will sound - rightly - about as sensible as a "War on Flatulence".

Will the EU Ever Stand up for Its Citizens?

This spinelessness is just sickening in the extreme:

The United States and the European Union are nearing completion of an agreement allowing law enforcement and security agencies to obtain private information — like credit card transactions, travel histories and Internet browsing habits — about people on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.

The potential agreement, as outlined in an internal report obtained by The New York Times, would represent a diplomatic breakthrough for American counterterrorism officials, who have clashed with the European Union over demands for personal data. Europe generally has more stringent laws restricting how governments and businesses can collect and transfer such information.

- Laws which are apparently being chucked away purely because America wants to disregard them. This is what happens when European governments mouth fatuities about the so-called "war on terror": they then get hoist by their own rhetorical petard.

What's amazing is that probably 90% of Europeans would be against giving this kind of data to the US if they were ever offered any way to choose. Which they won't be, of course: that's democracy?

O (English) Rose, Thou Art Sick

Madness:

A bus-spotter says it is no longer safe to practise his hobby of 40 years after being branded a terrorist and a paedophile.

Rob McCaffery, 50, is proud of his 30,000 photos of trams and coaches but after being interrogated twice in 12 months he fears the time may have come to hang up his camera.

The credit controller, from Gloucester, says he now suffers "appalling" abuse from the authorities and public who doubt his motives.

The bus-spotter, officially known as an omnibologist, said: "Since the 9/11 attacks there has been a crackdown.

If any further proof were needed of the insanity of the so-called "war on terror" this is it: the great British tradition of bus-spotting seen as crypto-terrorism by pathetically susceptible minds. (Via Boing Boing.)

Ashamed to be British

Quite.

Warning: Common-Sense Attack!

Look out - the UK Government (or parts of it) are suffering an attack of common-sense:

President George W Bush's concept of a "war on terror" has given strength to terrorists by making them feel part of something bigger, Hilary Benn will say.

The international development secretary will tell a meeting in New York the phrase gives a shared identity to small groups with widely differing aims.

And Mr Benn, a candidate for Labour's deputy leadership, will confirm that UK officials will stop using the term.

The White House coined the phrase after the attacks of 11 September 2001.

Mr Benn will say: "In the UK, we do not use the phrase 'war on terror' because we can't win by military means alone.

It will be interesting to see what happen when Tony "Poodle" Blair finally deigns to move on.

There is no War on...Botnets

After the War on Drugs, and the War on Terror, now, it seems, we are to have a War on Botnets:

Mr Toure said that whatever the solution, the fight against botnets was a "war" that could only be won if all parties - regulators, governments, telecoms firms, computer users and hardware and software makers - worked together.

But it is a truth universally acknowledged, that as soon as you declare "war" on some amorphous entity like "drugs" or "terror" or "botnets", you've already lost, because you shift from the practical to the rhetorical.

This is all about security theatre: talking tough instead of acting intelligently. Sorting out botnets does not require a "war": it's simply a matter of telling Windows users the truth about their bug-infested system, getting them to use a firewall and anti-virus software and - maybe, one day - getting them to understand that downloading or opening unknown software is hugely risky.

There is no War on Terror

Blimey, there's hope yet:

London is not a battlefield. Those innocents who were murdered on July 7 2005 were not victims of war. And the men who killed them were not, as in their vanity they claimed on their ludicrous videos, 'soldiers'. They were deluded, narcissistic inadequates. They were criminals. They were fantasists. We need to be very clear about this. On the streets of London, there is no such thing as a 'war on terror', just as there can be no such thing as a 'war on drugs'.

The fight against terrorism on the streets of Britain is not a war. It is the prevention of crime, the enforcement of our laws and the winning of justice for those damaged by their infringement.

"Pirates" Redeeming 'Pirates'

I'm not keen on the term 'pirates' when applied to people who copy content; its one of those blatant attempts to pre-empt the debate by adopting a deliberately loaded terminology (rather like the idea of a 'war on terror'). My view is that pirates - the real ones - were a murderous and contemptible crew whose crimes are not even remotely comparable to those who transgress one-sided and disproportionate copyright laws, and therefore the two should never be associated.

But maybe I will need to re-visit my position. Although the reality behind pirates has not changed, the public perception probably has. And that's largely thanks to two films: Pirates of the Caribbean I and II. As a result of Johnny Depp's lovable rogue, equating those who infringe on copyright with pirates might actually make the former seem rather more admirable.

But there is something else interesting going on here. "Pirates", the film, is one of the most successful in recent times; and yet, as these figures show, it is also one of the most copied/'pirated' on the P2P networks. As noted by TechDirt, this goes to show in the most dramatic way possible, that

despite what movie execs say, their films can "compete with free" -- and do pretty well. Whether it's offering something more convenient, offering moviegoers a better experience, or using free content as a jumping-off point to sell people other stuff, there's lots of ways movie studios and theaters can thrive in the face of file-sharing. But to do that, they've got to own up to the obvious, and quit blaming piracy instead of changing how they do business.