I wonder if she will exclude commercial snooping of private communication from it?
Much-loved Home Secretary Wacky Jacqui Smith today announced changes to the code of practise which governs use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and promised to remove the under-tens from the DNA database. Local councils' use of Ripa has caused a media storm this year although the majority of incidents covered …
How many times will she have to be told to delete the DNA profiles of *ALL* innocent people before she actually does it? She has been told to remove them by the "Information Tribunal", the House of Lords and the ECHR. Who is she waiting to tell her to remove them before she actually *does*? God?
Actually, If God turned up in her office and demanded she remove these profiles I imagine she would have Him arrested under counter-terrorism laws, and have His fingerprints and DNA put on the database too.
She would then deny any prior knowledge of the arrest and insist the police were "only doing their job".
"tackling the misery caused by noisy and disruptive neighbours"
The guy downstairs from us, he use to complain all the time about the noise. Tiny little noises would send him into a rage, banging the walls and leaving us little notes about our behaviour. My wife dropped a plastic cup on the floor at 10pm and he was at our door to complain.
He's gone now, the new guy downstairs never complains about the noise and when we asked him if we were noisy he said, no, he never hears us.
Seems to me that this 'misery' is subjective and that simply because someone is complaining doesn't mean there is a problem to be tackled. That we have courts and laws that tolerate minor infractions, that RIPA bypasses and that this situation is exactly why we have courts and laws that tolerate minor infractions. It's not the local councils job to play at being amateur policemen, that's a police job and the judges jobs to determine the truth.
Now Wacky Jacqui has a new thing, police can get a person evicted for anti-social behaviour like noise. But it's done in a magistrates court and magistrates are not judges or even legally qualified, they're just local 'upstanding' people intended to tackle minor offences like littering. Kicking someone out of their home is not a minor matter and should not be taken lightly, why not a fine!? Is EVERYONE in the family making noise? Really? Or are we just slapping on blanket blame because it's easier? Is it so much to ask for proper judicial process for something major like eviction, like is guaranteed in the Human Rights Act?
Anti-social behaviour offences permit hearsay evidence. A family was evicted recently for having loud parties AND ALLEGEDLY taking drugs. i.e. there was no evidence to convict them of taking drugs, it was thrown in to spice up a weak claim. Exactly the sort of thing not allowed in court.
If the complainer guy downstairs had had his way, he would have tried to get us evicted with false allegations of drug taking and noisy partying, and how could we prove we are not taking drugs and not noisy when there is no evidence to discredit and the magistrate who decides isn't even versed in the law? You'd kick us out into the street?
Then there's the DNA thing, the court said she can't hold the DNA of innocent people. She is saying she will only take under 10's off the database. i.e. defying the court again. Just sack her already. When she keeps LOSING HUMAN RIGHTS CASES it means she's attacking UK human rights. A few fake surveys stuffed with leading questions is only intended to fool fellow MPs, it does not mean she has the backing of GB.
FFS, the woman says that if you've seen doggy porn you're a criminal, I bet every single male MP has seen doggy porn. How can you ever vote for a party like treats everyone like criminals and has so many prisoners it can no longer find jails to put them in.
that fat, flatulent old harpy completely misses the point. On what basis does she draw the distinction between fly tipping and dog fouling? Surely the real distinction should be between offenses that are associated with terrorism and those that aren't.
Oh, and removing 70 under 10 year olds from the database. Big f*cking deal! Has it not got through her thick syphilitic skull that it is now illegal to hold the details of innocent people, no matter what age.
God I can't wait for the next election.
Remove records? We need those records (even of the innocent) to catch terrorists, rapists and kiddy fiddlers. Even without the criminal's DNA on file, familial markers can be used to work out who they are.
Looks like the liberal hand-wringers have one the day and left us open to attack by these scum.
This is absolute cobblers!
The plans for the NIR never included provision for children under 10 to be included in the profiling. The documents clearly state that profiling will begin with children aged 11+, so removing the mere 70 records of under 11's was an easy throwaway gesture for this mad-woman.
The EU directive states clearly that it is ILLEGAL under EU laws to hold the biometric or generic of *anyone* who is not guilty of a crime in *ANY WAY* in *ANY DATABASE* without their consent, yet I see no sign that the Home Office even intends to follow that directive. Instead, we start hearing tales of how the UK wants to 'opt out' of the convention on human rights with plans to have our own version, neatly side-stepping the issue.
Ms. Smith needs to be brough to heel, immediately, and preferably sacked followed by the swift dismantling of all of these crack-pot, fascist plans she keeps spouting.
I certainly won't be voting labour for as long as they continue to erode our civil liberties!
I wonder if that nasty little Fascist Jacqui has a dog because it smells to me like she just doesn't want RIPA used for crimes she might commit. I dont really see why fly tipping is any more serious a crime than people letting their dog shit on the pavement?
The ONLY people who should be allowed to use these powers are the security services and the police and then only with the over sight of judges. This is not a set of powers that a bunch of waster councilors, or any other arms/legs of our draconian government, should have no matter what crimes they suspect may have been commited.
Why is it that throughout all of her rambling and explanations of the DNA storage policy that I never once hear her say "and we'll be purging the DNA records of those who haven't been convicted of an offence"
She's now in direct violation of EU law and the EU court.
She should be arrested and removed forthwith.
She's a danger to us all.
Strange that. I wonder what the Home Office's own researchers say?
"Furthermore, it has become evident that following the introduction of CCTV, support for its use decreased. This was shown not to be the result of concern over issues relating to civil liberties and privacy, but there is a suggestion that support has declined in step with reductions in people’s perceptions of the camera’s effectiveness; fewer respondents believed the cameras would reduce crime." [p58]
"In short, [CCTV] was oversold – by successive governments – as the answer (indeed the ‘magic bullet’, Ditton and Short, 1999) to crime problems." [p116]
"Assessed on the evidence presented in this report, CCTV cannot be deemed a success. It has cost a lot of money and it has not produced the anticipated benefits." [p120]
"Smith said the use of CCTV has the confidence and support of the British public"
Does she really believe that?
Last year some toe-rags broke into my house and despite being caught on the local council's CCTV doing it they couldn't be prosecuted because the CCTV didn't prove they'd entered my house!! Shambles.
She has to go.
While the DNA of completely innocent people should be removed from the database - (if requested - my brother in law was picked up by the police while at work and DNA tested for the murder of a Bolton prostitute a few years ago. He was completely innocent and cleared from the line of enquiry once his DNA was taken. But if his DNA was on the database he wouldn't have had the embarassment of being taken from work by police?) - we have to remember that some crims go to court (especially for rape) and are found not guilty due to lack of evidence or the victim too afraid to speak out.
I like the idea of a petition to get rid of Ms Smith, but the reasoning - she's destroyed the moral [sic] of the various British Police Forces - is way off target.
We don't need someone who "actually understands how important the police are for the safe operation of a society". We need someone who understands human rights, civil liberties and how important they are compared to snooping on fly tippers. We need someone who is not looking for any excuse to grow the powers of the state.
We need a petition that states clearly that we think she is a danger to British society, not that she doesn't understand the police force.
"we have to remember that some crims go to court (especially for rape) and are found not guilty due to lack of evidence or the victim too afraid to speak out."
What is it about innocent until PROVEN guilty that you don't understand?
I'm sorry but assuming someone's guilt because the evidence couldn't be found is a very, very dangerous route, one that undermines the foundations of justice in this country. One does not have to prove ones innocence, the prosecution must prove guilt.
Assuming people got off rape charges because there wasn't enough evidence or the victim didn't speak up is also a great way to ruin someone's life and destroy their family and friendships, all on allegations.
You can be sure Wacky Jacqui will have that list of names into her database and marked as terrorist/dissenter before it closes.
'When a government is afraid of electorate its democracy'
I'm afraid to sign in-case I get a black mark on my record or a red spot on the back of my head. I'll just wait and hope that democracy works next time I make my X.
No innocent and not guilty are one and the same.
To say otherwise PRESUMES guilt even when there has been no evidence of guilt (which doesn't require the victim to speak out) and no witness evidence (other than the victim) and that the victim cannot be protected (but they are protected so this is false).
It's to ignore the real situation and hypothesize a movie scenario, of Mafioso Dons that can hunt down their victims whereever they go and however they are protected...
People are innocent by default.
I've just created a new petition to review Home Office policy-making and addresses our collective concerns more directly than the existing call for the sacking of Jacqui Smith.
It will be awaiting approval for a short while, but (hopefully) you'll be able to find it on:
Title : Review Home Office policies, including the NIR, to protect out civil liberties
Text : Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, is abusing her position to force through unaccountable and irrevocable changes to the freedoms and liberties of the UK citizenry. Specifically the National Identity Register, Biometric/Genetic information gathering, the planned rollout of ID Cards to those groups of society without voting rights (Children, Criminals and Asylum Seekers) under the guise of the prevention of terrorism (without explanation as to how they will defend us), over-regulation and censorship of the Internet, monitoring of email and telephone communications without consent and various other programs many of which are held as illegal under EU law and the Human Rights legislation. All of these acts, often being forced through under obscure parlimentary systems, are enacted without open or honest public consultation and are fundamentally undemocratic. The government should review these plans and policies openly and then act to ensure that our civil liberties, hard-earned by our forebears in many conflicts, are protected by a truly representative and democratic government.
We mustn't be afraid to voice our concerns. Sign up!
The pie faced fascist bitch rides again ! Notice that she has basically said more or less nothing ? "We'll continue to do as we are, only with extra magic pixie dust to make sure it's OK, and no more dog poo stories in the Daily Mail, ta" is about the gist of it.
So ya boo sucks to her.
Perhaps all the the frothing at the mouth RIPA haters can answer some pertinent questions though, like how should we gather evidence of dog fouling ? If, indeed, paper boys are carrying to much weight, in breech of some H&S regs, how do we check without sending someone to have a look ?
Why, exactly, is it a disproportionate use of "state power" for a public officer to photograph someone in the commission of a crime ? How _DO_ I check if people really live where they say they do, and I suspect they are lying in order to defraud the state ?
There would be no problem here, if it wasn't for the common (and justified) misconception that RIPA is somehow only for terrs and crims. If NuLab had told the fecking truth for a change when they were hammering this through instead of caterwauling about how we needed it to protect us from the four horsemen of the apocalypse, viz: terrorists, drug dealers, peados and organised crime, we wouldn't be having such a bloody hysterical frenzy over it's use.
For those of you who obviously haven't bothered to read it, RIPA specifically provides for the authorisation of directed surveillance (e.g. snapping poo spreaders) for the purposes of :
(a) in the interests of national security;
(b) for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or of preventing disorder;
(c) in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom;
(d) in the interests of public safety;
(e) for the purpose of protecting public health;
(f) for the purpose of assessing or collecting any tax, duty, levy or other imposition, contribution or charge payable to a government department;
And again, try to bear in mind that _before_ RIPA, local authorities could already, and frequently did, put people under surveillance. RIPA isn't perfect by a long stretch, but if it wasn't there, there wouldn't be an audit trail for the Daily Wail to FOI in order to get something to whine about.
No jaqui, it doesnt work like that, the european union supreme overlord council or whatever they`re calling themselves these days demanded ALL innocent people get removed from it.
mabey she should spend some of our taxes on reading lessons rather than putting her fingers in her eyes, closing her eyes and pretending its not happening, la la la la
So she promises "a review of the RIPA code of practice", whilst ignoring the fact that she has now been *TOLD* that keeping the DNA of people not convicted of crime is illegal. The "removing 70 under 10s from the database is just a sop which attempts to distract people's attention from what's still going on.
She also claims that the use of CCTV has the confidence and support of the British public, but I wouldn't be surprised if these are the same people who, allegedly, think that ID cards are a great idea and should be introduced immediately...
You may be comfortable with the tinpot authoritarians at your local council watching your every move, I'm not.
If Labour had been honest about the intent of the RIPA then it never would have got through. Or at least shouldn't have, if open debate had been permitted.
I'm not a Mail reader I am concerned about government feature creep, from both a civil liberties and a financial perspective. I don't want the state involved in monitoring my every move, I don't think dog fouling is important enough to allow the intrusion into privacy by ever more people, I don't believe the systems will ever be good to prevent their abuse, I don't like it. I also resent being asked to pay for it.
Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys has argued consistently, and correctly, that in order to be non-discriminatory the NDNAD would have to contain the records of everyone. Under-10s would presumably be included in such a scenario.
The alternative non-discriminatory approach is to include no-one and to use the crime scene database instead, together with temporarily held profiles taken during investigation or for evidence in prosecution.
Ahh wacky Jacqui (why don't you call Jacqui that any more? The name is well deserved)...
Yes of course it makes sense to use an anti-terrorism law on noisy neighbors. Sure... *rolls eyes*. You guys over there really need to get things in order or you'll beat the US to having a complete police state.
@ David Hicks
"I don't think dog fouling is important enough to allow the intrusion into privacy by ever more people"
Where is the intrusion into privacy ? You walk a dog in public, it shits on the pavement in public, someone takes a photo of you and your doggy pal doing the dirty, in public.
Also, allowing your quadrupedal companion to foul the public highway is a crime, why would you expect to have any right to privacy during the commission of a crime ? Are you really sure that's what you want to advocate ?
Penultimately, who are the "ever more people" intruding into this non existent privacy right ?
And lastly, "If Labour had been honest about the intent of the RIPA then it never would have got through". I'm not sure about that. If they had said that as well as terror, crime, etc, it was going to place limits, a requirement for authorisation, and an audit trail on local authority decisions involving surveillance, none of which existed before, and if they'd made it clear that, counter to what seems to be popular opinion, RIPA doesn't grant anyone any powers at all, and in fact exists to place limits on them, then perhaps the opposition wouldn't have been able to grab hold of the "snoopers charter" argument, which is bollocks in the way I have described. RIPA doesn't enable anyone to do anything, it merely mandates that they ask first before undertaking certain kinds of activity.
Spooks they were a'spying and councils a'snooping well before it all got codified into RIPA, having it written down and regulated arguably makes it slightly less sinister than the pre-existing regime where much was done on the nod and the wink, and mainly done in the dark at that, where you can't see it, and where, as I pointed out, you are unable to complain about it.
RIPA is broken, but it still heaps better than no RIPA. Governments, councils and the like will arrogate these kinds of powers to themselves any way, all bureaucracies do so as long as they are allowed to exist, and there is not, will never be, and never has been, anything you nor I can do about that. At least this way we can see what they're doing.
because you can always trust British government to do the smart thing, to respect your rights, and do it's utmost to protect you. Always a paragon of common sense, your government listens to your petitions and protests so there's absolutely no need to balance power between the people and the British government. No worries about the police, who will rush to protect you from the rare criminal element, and would never stoop to capturing all your (the victim's) details and even your DNA for further study.
Further proof that guns are not needed can be found in the recent decrease of violent crime and the massive increase of political decency and restoration of civil liberties, as well as the decommission of the surveillance state, over the last few years since private ownership of handguns were banned. There is good reason to suspect that this increasing trend of government caring and goodwill might lead to the complete elimination of the chav subculture, leading to outbreaks of civilized behavior, decent fashion sense, and good taste in music amongst the ever-better educated youth in public schooling.
Across the Pond, you can see the same trends in California, where crime, fraud, and government -sanctioned robbery are at all time lows with the strict regulation and removal of high powered rifles and low powered pistols. One only needs look to the decreased number of protests to see that people's satisfaction of the current and future Administrations are at an all time high!
Kumbaya! puff puff pass!
Kain, the last general election was May 2005 - they have to call another election before May 2010 (5 years). Generally, they wait until a propitious moment - such as after a major national success. Gordo missed a trick by not calling one at the end of the Beijing Olympics. But then, his poll rating was so poor that it would still have been a disaster for him. Can't understand why his ratings are going up at the moment as the dole queue is approaching 2 mil.
Rick, "fly-tipping" is a colloquial term for garbage that has been dumped illegally ie. not in a designated recycling or waste disposal area. Once it was primarily builders waste (bricks, concrete etc.), but there has been a growth in more toxic materials. People have to have licences and pay for this service - the fly-tippers dump the garbage without paying the fee or taking proper precautions. There was a case last year of a couple that own a few acres of land and keep horses - it has been discovered that the land was used for fly-tipping and it will cost them several hundred thousand pounds to get it cleaned up.
Illegally dumping rubbish.
Instead of taking your rubbish and disposing of it in legal ways (often involving paying), people will take it out to the country and dump it at the roadside, dump it up alleys, etc, etc.
Strangely, some people have difficulty understanding why adding extra incentives (various charges for disposing of rubbish) might possibly increase fly tipping !
If you are actually saying that allowing UK citizens the 'right to bear arms' would resolve our issues with authoritarian government, or that somehow our lack of right to own firearms is the root cause of our troubles, then you, sir, are a moron of the first degree. (If not, or I missed the /sarcasm tags, then I apologise).
In the US, more than 60% of all fatal shootings are traced back to the victims *own firearm* - Yes, thats right, you are more likely to be shot dead in the US *because* you own a firearm.
3 in 10 fatal shootings are perpetrated upon or cause the death of minors (under 18 years old).
Last year in the US, there were in excess of 11k fatal shootings from illegal firearms alone. Apparently a very high percentage of those were suicides as well.
No, we don't need guns in the UK, we need a legal system and law enforcement that favours the people over government policy.
"Where is the intrusion into privacy ? You walk a dog in public, it shits on the pavement in public, someone takes a photo of you and your doggy pal doing the dirty, in public."
I don't believe that being out in public is in any way implicit permission for my activities to be recorded.
No, I don't believe that dog crap is important enough to justify monitoring the entire population 24/7. Nor do I believe that being on camera is a deterrent to more serious crime. Nor do I believe it has significantly affected the ability of the police to successfully prosecute crime. Every study shows it too be ineffectual.
Studies also show that people abuse whatever powers they are given, you get phone company employees harassing ex-girlfriends and reading their text messages. Politicians pressuring the police to employ relatives etc. It's only a matter of time before we learn of the council employee that was using cctv to stalk women.
"who are the "ever more people" intruding into this non existent privacy right ?"
The system should be available to the police and the police only, if it exists at all. They are trained and they are accountable, sometimes. Council employees are the "ever more people", and they seem to have less and less qualms about using it for anything they feel like. I doubt very much they control access to the system at all, let alone properly.
"RIPA doesn't enable anyone to do anything, it merely mandates that they ask first before undertaking certain kinds of activity."
It spelled out what could be done. It codified a lot of the crap that was already going on. The only bill that should have been introduced was one banning it.
Spooks will be spooks, but council members can fuck off. This country was once free.
"I don't believe that being out in public is in any way implicit permission for my activities to be recorded."
What about while you are committing a crime ?
"No, I don't believe that dog crap is important enough to justify monitoring the entire population 24/7"
And nor does anyone else. The suggestion is that a dog warden ought to be able to to take a photo of you allowing your dog to foul the public highway, e.g. while you are committing a crime. _Not_ to monitor everyone all the time to see if they own dogs which might foul the pavement. You are confusing a man photographing you with the proposed uberdatabase.
"Every study shows it too be ineffectual."
That statement is meaningless without a lot of citations attached to it. You will need to identify "every" study, and provide links. Ditto with the follow up "Studies also show ...". I suspect what you really mean is "anecdotal evidence which is largely made up by the Daily Mail or some bloke down the pub suggests", but I will willingly stand corrected if you are able to supply a list of studies which do indeed suggest that the behaviour you describe is unavoidable and universal.
"The system should be available to the police and the police only, if it exists at all"
What is this "system" of which you speak ? I'm asking you about a dog warden with a camera. And if you think that the cops ought to be responsible for policing parks for turd-crime, you need to go and talk to a policeman so he can explain to you why he hasn't got the time for that.
"They are trained and they are accountable, sometimes"
Sometimes ? Really ? That's good enough is it ? And if the corrupting behaviour that your myriad studies have irrefutably proved is universal doesn't apply to them because "they are trained" , why can others not be so trained ? And remember, we wouldn't be having this discussion if RIPA hadn't made the 'council snoopers' accountable.
So now I've knocked down your straw men, will you tell me if you are advocating a right to privacy for those who are obviously committing an offence, and what measures should replace the ones you have the problem with ?
What does this delusional little creature see when she looks in the shaving mirror every morning? The answer is that she doesn't see anything because she shaves in the dark.so that she can avoid having to face up to the reality of what she is confronted with.
Bit like her political philosophy, really, ignore the facts and serve up another helping of lies, delusions and prejudice. Examples follow.
According to the wacky wonder, every day she is besieged by throngs of confused citizens demanding to be issued with ID cards so that they can resolve their personal identity crisis. Nope, you didn't see this on TV, because the bitch is lying.
Same story for CCTV surveillance, same imaginary crowds begging to be watched over 24/7. Didn't happen.
Claims the failure of the London/Glasgow bombing attempts was due to the effectiveness of the security services. No, Jacqui dear, it was 100% due to the incompetence of the murderous fanatics who were eventually detained by the local cops. Lying.
Don't even mention her evidence-free claims that extending detention without charge from 28 to 42 days would enhance our security. Delusional.
There is a serious problem with trafficking eastern European women into this country for prostitution. Jacqui's solution is to ignore the traffickers and criminalise men who avail themselves of the women's services. Prejudice and incompetence.
Then there is the matter of her conviction that she can solve the very real problem of paedophilia by banning certain images from the internet. These claims that two dimensional images of extreme behaviour can turn people into slavering, drooling sex monsters have never been substantiated in any scientific study. The government has already implemented a campaign depicting extreme graphic images of the consequences of smoking on cigarette packages. That did not work, so now they propose to hide the fags under the counter. Will that evidence convince Wacky that images do not change behaviour? Nah.
Finally, I would like to comment on the technical absurdity of her uber database, but I am so busy rolling about on the floor laughing my bollocks off that I just can't be arsed.
I was attacked outside my offices by a moron on a bike (he rode the bike into me, when I complained, he threw the bike at me so I caught it and threw it down a hill - long story). The upshot was, the police were involved. As it was outside my offices, I told the police which video cameras covered the scene, even giving them contact details for the dept responsible for the videos. 2 months later, I had a letter from the police saying no cameras covered the area. I still have the CCTV tape which the obviously didn't bother to ask for.
I have such little faith in the police in this country, does anyone really think a CCTV database will improve the police attitude of ignoring anything they can't be bothered to investigate?
I never bothered replying to the letter
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019