Without the state

EU - rights of suspects and defendants under attack by law enforcement

Via Statewatch comes news of yet another EU attack on individual liberty in the name of law enforcement and provision of central state access to data about individuals. Tony Bunyan, Statewatch editor says:

"This is going to be a momentous decision affecting existing national laws on data protection, and the exchange of data within the EU and around the globe. It is also going to the the foundation of the right of data protection in a host of planned and future EU measures, including the new Schengen Information System (SIS II).

The Commission draft proposal is being substantially re-written by the Council's Multidisciplinary Group on Organised Crime including removing the rights of data subjects and obstacles to the passing of data to third countries outside the EU.
 
Until the Council finishes its so-called "second reading" the final text will not been known - when they are intending to simply "nod" it through. If it does so without the opportunity for national and European parliaments and civil society to express their views it will utterly lack legitimacy”

The key conclusions of the Statewatch study are:

• the Council is removing data protection for the individual to effect the “principle of availability” (ie: that data held by one agency must be accessible to all other agencies in the EU) and seeking to ensure that nothing stands in the way of direct/automated access to data by the law enforcement agencies
• the Commission proposal is being fundamentally re-drafted by a Council working party representing the interests of the law enforcement agencies
• the European Parliament is only being “consulted” and has already given its opinion, now there is nothing to stop the Council re-writing the measure and nodding it through – unless the parliament insists on being re-consulted
• No principle to be established on the right of access to data held on data subjects because "in almost all cases" it would not be supplied "because of theexceptions"
• no national data protection law may “restrict or prohibit” the exchange of personal data with agencies in other EU states
• "national security matters" (internal security agencies) to be exempt from control
• admission that the main 1995 Directive ("first pillar") does not work properly in the transfer of personal data to third countries
• no obligation to correct errors or mistakes in data passed to EU states or third countries
• data to be passed to agencies in non-EU states whether they have adequate data protection laws or not under existing bilateral agreements
• to amend EU-USA agreements to meet the data protection standards would "adversely affect the EU's credibility"

The Statewatch “Observatory” on data protection in the EU contains all the background documents – full-text - and is updated. It is available here.

This is a bus?

This is indeed a bus. (Via Cool Town Studios)

What earthly use are politicians?

Given that the caperings of Blair, Cameron et al, seem to have very little in the way of practical utility, this isn’t a rhetorical question – I really want to know. I was prompted to ask it again by the current TV series, “The Amazing Mrs Pritchard”, showing on BBC. In that programme, the main protagonist, Ros Pritchard (played by Jane Horrocks) becomes Prime Minister by presenting herself in opposition not to other parties, but to politics itself.

While there have been many strong political dramas on British TV, some looking in from the outside, like Cathy Come Home, others from the inside like House of Cards or Yes Minister, this is not one of them. It is entertainment not political satire or a thriller. If it is anything it is romantic fiction with a strong heroine who is her own woman. I think however that I caught an oblique homage to Yes Minister in Episode 2, when Ros Pritchard, as the new PM was exhorted to be “courageous“. 

Since almost the entire election process from nomination to the results is whipped through in double quick time in Episode 1, it is clear that the series will largely be concerned with the problems of being in office. Since the core premise is that all politicians and by extension - since the front bench seems to be entirely women - all men are stupid, venial or both, this could of course offer a intriguing dramatic clash of principles. However Ros is not a Candide - she may be politically naïve but she is not entirely without steel and seems capable of exerting her authority over the political heavyweights who have flocked to join her –even Janet McTeer for example in one of the better performances – smart tough and sexy in one intimidating package.

Two set speeches in Episode 2 don’t however ring true. Her address in front of No 10 is very much at odds with the insecurity and diffidence she shows in her audience with the Queen, while her first appearance at the despatch box seemed indistinguishable from most other front bench politicians. In that appearance I think I caught, if not a direct quote, at least a reference to a real one – the reference to her being untouched by the scorn of the opposition rang a faint bell, but I can’t pin it down.

All the problems ahead have been heavily telegraphed so we know it will all end in tears. Her husband’s misdeeds (embezzlement?) at the company have been suppressed for now, but for how long? For how long will Janet McTeer’s character remain a loyal lieutenant?

It would be unfair to criticise this series for not being something that it never intended to be, but it is legitimate I think to consider what it could have been. Taking the anti-political stance at face value, what would have happened if this had been developed as a UK version of “Alongside Night”? That would have the potential for real political drama, breaking the mould of TV politics in a big way.

Imagine if Ros Pritchard’s first statement in office had been this?

With the exception of those government workers who perform no marketable service – tax collectors, regulators and so on – we urge you to declare your agency independent from the government and to organise yourselves into free worker’s syndicates. Shares of stock should be issued to employees and pensioners by whatever method seems fair and the resultant companies can them hire professional managers to place the operation on a profitable footing. We envisage this for postal workers, municipal services, libraries, universities and schools etc. (Adapted from a speech at the end of ‘Alongside Night’ by “Merce Rampart” on taking power )

I’m not convinced it would work in reality – but it could have been great drama.

The (very) long arm of US law?

I have just bought a PC from Dell. The sale documents contain this remarkable paragraph. 

Dual use goods: Subject to control if exported outside the European Union. These commodities, technology or software were exported in accordance with the US Export Administration Regulations. Diversion contrary to U.S. law prohibited. The purchaser agrees to indemnify the seller and hold the seller harmless from and against all claims, liability, and obligation whatsoever (including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees) arising out of the transfer of these commodities across national boundaries without proper government licenses and authorizations. Reexport/retransfer without prior authorization from the US Bureau of Export Administration is prohibited. Export, reexport, sale or retransfer to military end-users or end-uses in prohibited destinations and proliferation end-users and end-uses is strictly prohibited without prior authorisation from the US government.

While I have no intention of reselling the PC to North Korea, it looks as if I couldn't even sell it to North Carolina without prior approval from some US government department. Quite why and how the US gvernment thinks it has the right to place such restrictions on a contract  made between a UK citizen and a UK based business I don't know. Why such restrictions are even thought necessary for such a mundane consumer object - for that is what the PC has become these days - is even more baffling.

The Holocaust's Arab Heroes

Arabs welcomed Jews into their homes, guarded Jews' valuables so Germans could not confiscate them, shared with Jews their meager rations and warned Jewish leaders of coming SS raids. The sultan of Morocco and the bey of Tunis provided moral support and, at times, practical help to Jewish subjects. In Vichy-controlled Algiers, mosque preachers gave Friday sermons forbidding believers from serving as conservators of confiscated Jewish property. In the words of Yaacov Zrivy, from a small town near Sfax, Tunisia, "The Arabs watched over the Jews."

via Normblog

Looking into the abyss...

I linked to an earlier post by Ken McLeod on the chances of war with Iran here. I still hope he is wrong but...

Right on schedule, the USS Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group has sailed for the Persian Gulf. Arthur Silber and Billmon can't quite believe this means what the sources cited by Lindorff suspect: that an attack on Iran is only weeks away. Retired Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner has argued that the summer of diplomacy (PDF) is over; the decision for war has been made. That it seems a somewhat risky and counter-productive venture is not, he insists, an objection to its likelihood: 'The "making sense" filter was not applied over the past four years for Iraq, and it is unlikely to be applied in evaluating whether to atttack Iran.' One takes his point, and the timing to this very month - an October surprise - has been predicted for over a year, but can it really be possible that we are this close to the abyss and the market isn't screaming?

The freedom to believe...

We want the freedom to believe what we like, ignore facts, sugar coat reality, but then we have to recognize that there is a price to pay. If we abdicate reason and clear thinking and reality checks, the result is not only that pesky scientists can’t gainsay our beliefs – neither can we gainsay those of fundamentalists, theocrats, obscurantists, Nazis, Holocaust deniers. We have to choose, we can’t have it both ways, we can’t embrace irrational ideas we just happen to like and reject the ones we don’t. If we insist on setting sail for the realm of hunch and intuition and thinking with your gut, you’re likely to meet some fellow voyagers who are not all peace and love and light.

OPHELIA BENSON, (2006) Perspectivism. Think 13 p100

Aphorisms

One of the many ways in which blogs can be used is as a sort of commonplace book – a collection of all those aphorisms, telling quotes, news cuttings that catch our eye. In that vein I was rather taken by these, by Don Paterson in the Autumn 2006 issue of Poetry Review (published by the Poetry Society).

The first goes to the heart of blogging:

Writers can redeem a wasted day in two minutes; alas this leads them to waste their days like no one else.

The second I am afraid immediately brought a face and name to mind…

He liked to think he was a thorn in our side; but he was a much smaller man than he imagined himself, and merely a pain in the arse.

Will Davies on post-political language

The emptiness of political rhetoric isn't new but is does seem to be sinking to new depths...

The problem is not with any of those individual policies as they stand, it's with a rhetorical device that obscures the specificity of the policy decision that's been taken. One might say that no nuclear power stations represents a 'sensible mixture', or that no rights for defendents would be an 'appropriate balance', or that a drastic change was required in the IP regime to achieve a 'balance'. Is there any type of policy decision that couldn't be defended by talking in these terms? Effectively any new policy measure could be concealed under the concept of 'balance', as long as it didn't crowd out everything else, which then justifies some quite disruptive interventions. Maybe we want a balance between supporting heritage and business, so we should only knock down half of St Paul's Cathedral  (the 'balance' struck at Spitalfields). Maybe we want a 'mixed economy' in policing techniques, so we will only supply 30% of our policeman with stun guns.  Or perhaps we want to strike a balance between the interests of motorists and those of the environment, so we will cut fuel duty but not abolish it altogether. (Rightwingers could make the same point by inverting each of these examples).

More on libertarianism

By coincidence, Stumbling and Mumbling covers similar issues to my last post in two of his own. This one discusses the question of why more people travel from the far left towards libertarianism than make the opposite journey?

I'm not convinced this is actually the case, more that the dogmatism of youth is usually replaced by a more nuanced view of the world. I know this is often used to cover 'selling out' but in truth the world is a more complex place than we are willing to admit at 20. Even when our perception of what is wrong is unchanged, our approach to those wrongs will be more pragmatic, having been tempered by experience - and hence I think more realistic.

Commenter Phil sums things up ...

In the literal sense, at least I've been a libertarian leftist for most of my adult life. But I guess I am that much more suspicious of the state's ability to extend individual liberty than I would have been twenty years ago, so perhaps the pattern does hold to some extent.

Another post brings together a long list of left libertarian publications, one of which (Cohen) I am in the process of reading with another (Otsuka) on the pile to come. I don't think am ever likely to catch up...

Some of what Cohen has to say casts an interesting light on the motives of climate change deniers and given time I will be preparing a separate post on that.