See You In Court: Simon Singh vs. The British Chiropractic Assn
Posted in bad medicine on May 4th, 2011Part 1
Part 2
1984 Comes To The UK
Posted in big brother on March 4th, 2011
Unmanned spy drones, CCTV that recognises faces and cameras in the back of taxis could soon be the norm on the streets of Britain, the Home Office admits
Ministers signalled that advances in technology meant there was nothing to stop such controversial surveillance measures becoming commonplace.
The warning came in proposals for a code of practice to better regulate the spread of CCTV amid fears there will be “unchecked proliferation” without it.
Christopher Graham, the Information Commissioner, said last year that Britain is heading towards becoming a surveillance state of unmanned spy drones, GPS tracking of employees and profiling through social networking sites.
He said the relentless march of surveillance had seen snooping techniques “intensify and expand” at such a pace that regulators were struggling to keep up.
The Coalition Government has pledged to row back the surveillance state and restore civil liberties.
Proposals contained in the Protection of Freedoms Bill last month included giving the public the power to take councils to court if they can argue CCTV is being abused or is intrusive.
A consultation on plans for a code of conduct for those using CCTV was published yesterday which will be monitored by a new Security Camera Commissioner.
The document said CCTV is often only of “limited value” to police investigations because images can be poor or cameras badly positioned.
But it added that “modern digital technology is on the cusp of revolutionising the use of CCTV”.
It said features such as powerful zoom, 360 degree vision, facial recognition “are coming closer to being an established part of the CCTV landscape”.
“New uses for systems, for example in taxis, are a natural part of industry growth”.
It added that while emerging technology such as remote unmanned airborne vehicles may not currently be widespread, “there is scope for their unchecked proliferation and attendant ricks if they are not considered within any overarching strategy”.
Britain is the one of the most watched countries in the world with more than four million public or privately owned CCTV cameras – one for every 14 people. Police have admitted that, in some cases, only one crime is solved for every 1,000 cameras.
Under the proposed code, police forces and councils who want to set up CCTV systems will have to be open and clear about what they will be used for and why.
West Midlands Police apologised last year over a controversial CCTV scheme which saw more than 200 surveillance cameras installed in two largely Muslim neighbourhoods.
The code may also say how long data, including images from automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras, should be retained.
James Brokenshire, the crime prevention minister, said: “CCTV and ANPR systems play a vital role in the prevention and detection of crime.
“However it is important they are used in a way that does not invade law-abiding people’s privacy or undermine the public’s confidence in them.
“That’s why we are establishing this code and that’s why we are asking the public what they think should be in it.”
Daniel Hamilton, director of campaign group Big Brother Watch, said the move was “a step in the right direction”.
Source: Telegraph UK
Thousands of anti-terror searches were illegal
Posted in UK government on June 12th, 2010
Thousands of people across the UK might have been stopped and searched illegally, figures released by the Home Office suggest.
Powers under section 44 of the Terrorism Act were used in “error” after the proper authorisations were not given.
In one example, for April 2004, the Met Police wrongly stopped 840 people.
Dozens of other examples from across the UK have been uncovered before rules were tightened in 2008.
Police Minister Nick Herbert said administrative errors were to blame and he has ordered an internal review of procedures.
The Metropolitan Police is also urgently considering what steps can be taken to contact the individuals concerned.
Extremists
Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 allows police to stop and search someone without suspicion that an offence has occurred.
The controversial powers can be used only in specific areas on the orders of a police chief, with later approval by the home secretary.
Supporters say such powers can make it harder for extremists to carry out reconnaissance in public areas, such as near high-profile tourist attractions.
But critics, including the government’s reviewer of terror legislation, Lord Carlile, say they unfairly target some ethnic groups and increase community tensions.
The Met is responsible for the vast majority of section 44 operations, many of which take place in Westminster and at major transport hubs or “iconic” tourist sites such as Buckingham Palace.
The force only discovered the April 2004 blunder after a request was made under the Freedom of Information Act earlier this year.
Officials researching stop and search authorisations found a Home Office minister had not signed within 48 hours.
A Met spokesman said the mistake was not noticed in 2004 due to an “oversight” and procedures have been reviewed.
Asked whether the force now faced a flood of legal actions, he said: “It is a matter for individuals to seek legal advice in relation to this issue.”
The spokesman also denied the force had misled the public, saying: “The Met first became aware of the issue in April 2010 during the process of compiling data in answer to a Freedom of Information request.
“All public statements issued before that date were made in good faith and there was no intention to mislead the public.”
The Met case sparked a trawl for errors across the UK.
Officials discovered 33 occasions when forces asked for a 29-day search window, even though the legislation only allows a maximum of 28 days. In two cases, forces asked for 30 days.
‘Public confidence’
The Home Office has written to each of the 14 police forces concerned to alert them to the errors.
It said the forces were now in the process of assessing how many individuals were illegally stopped and searched and would “do their best to contact those involved”.
Security Minister Baroness Neville-Jones said: “I am very concerned by these historical administrative errors. To maintain public confidence in our counter-terrorism powers, it is absolutely crucial all those responsible for exercising them do so properly.
“I take these matters extremely seriously and have instructed the department to conduct an urgent review of current procedures to ensure that errors can be prevented in future.
“The government is already committed to undertaking a review of counter-terrorism legislation which will include the use of stop and search powers in section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. We shall make our findings known as soon as possible.”
Officials at the Home Office, National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) and Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) are examining the mistakes.
The 40 flawed operations uncovered by officials include three which have previously been identified as being based on flawed paperwork.
The forces involved are: Metropolitan Police, North Yorkshire, Hampshire, Bedfordshire, Essex, Greater Manchester, Fife, South Wales and Thames Valley.
Invalid operations linked to Sussex Police and South Wales Police have been highlighted to Parliament previously.
Acpo lead officer on stop and search, Chief Constable Craig Mackey, said: “Stop and search can work well when it is carried out with the support and understanding of the community. Used correctly, it can create a hostile environment for terrorists to operate in and help protect the public.”
In January this year, the powers were ruled illegal by the European Court of Human Rights. The new coalition government has said it is reviewing their use, as part of a wider overhaul of anti-terror legislation.
Source: BBC
