(2nd) life imitating art?

This is unbelievable. Check out this story about terrorism in World of Warcraft: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/technology/7274377.stm

It's almost exactly the same as the South Park episode describing an attack on Imaginationland.

Look how tough I am

If ever there were any doubts about the new era that Nicolas Sarkozy will usher in, you need only look at the response to protests in France following the presidential elections. (See Le Monde).
A student who protested in Toulouse has been sentenced to a month in prison for aggravated assault on a police officer. Ok, so the protests were violent, but let's take a look at his crime: the assault was aggravated because the culprit used a weapon, which was an empty beer can. Although this was thrown in the general direction of the police, it didn't actually hit anyone. The student didn't deny his involvement and had no previous record for misdemeanours of any kind.
Sarkozy wants to show everyone how tough he is and wants this message relayed across the country via the judicial system. But what kind of justice will this bring? The parallels with early 80s Britain are there for all to see. How long before a repeat of Brixton / Toxteth / Handsworth, or a power struggle with a union that opposes his crushing form of "free enterprise", in the style of the miners' strike?

May Day

No, not May Day as in m'aidez, which is where the Mayday call comes from, but May Day as in international workers' day. I came upon a little known (to me) history of the day's credentials for demonstration and representation. Indeed, as I type this, I'm sat in an office where I can hear public sector employees protesting, while onlookers blame them for working in the public sector and just being a waste of money...
Anyway, May Day has its origins in the United States, of all places. In 1884, unions protested for the right to limit the working day to 8 hours. The 1st of May was chosen as a day of protest because it was the start of the financial year for many companies. In 1886, the majority won their cause, but many were left disenfranchised. There were strikes and on May 3rd, a bomb at a demo that caused a dozen police deaths. By 1889, the annual May Day marches had spread to France and on the third anniversary, the army was called in. 10 protestors were shot. May Day then became a day of workers' resistance across Europe and following the First World War it became a state holiday in France and a number of other UK countries. Harold Wilson's government followed suit in the UK in the 1970s.
Is any of this right? I haven't checked. But I'm sure you'll comment wikipedia style as necessary.

It's a mashed up world out there

This blog is turning into yet another whinge about work: YAWAW, or YAWN. It was never meant to be. So let me pretend that I'm saying something wider about society and the internet rather than just about my terrible employers.
If you're into things webby, you'll almost certainly have read about if not actually read Tim O'Reilly's call for (self-)censorship, which has made the headlines in a number of places. I think what's shocked the internet community is that someone with as much understanding of the web should advocate this approach, when the whole strength of the web has been its liberalism; I use the term with all its implicitly positive and negative connotations.
Generally the internet has grown because it is innovative and free form, permitting the majority of people with the financial means to post content little hindrance to do so. There are of course exceptions, but generally this liberalism has led to rapid innovation of diversity of content, business models and technology. This is particularly in evidence in the much rehashed concept of Web 2.0. Such innovation creates issues for the politically reactionary, but few in our industry would have expected Tim O'Reilly to form part of that group.
You wouldn't expect the leading internet agency in Europe to form part of that group either, but an email to staff suggests otherwise:

[We] have been asked to attend a brainstorming seminar at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on April 19th to explore the subject of how digital media can be used to defend against radicalisation.

The FCO tells us:

Groups such as Al Qaeda use the Internet and other communication media to great effect for propaganda and recruitment purposes.

Leaving aside my doubts about how much Al Qaeda is a cohesive group that distributes mass email and uploads photos of insurgent activities onto Flickr or terrorist mash-ups onto Facebook, let's just consider the company's reaction. It accepts without question that radicalisation is wrong and that the internet should be used to control it, then seeks to engage staff in telling the government why. So we're telling the government how to censor ourselves (coz they sure as hell don't know) while we tell our clients about how radical our thinking is in providing innovative solutions on the internet. We're provocative, we are. You can be too. Unless you're doing something that's not right. We'll be the judge of that though. So, we can create Web 2.0 style forums and develop some of the biggest mash-ups in the UK, but we're in favour of censorhip. That's because we're ethical. But we can still build sites for arms and cigarette manufacturers.
Wow, it's a complex world out there.

Too taboo to be true?

What are we to make of this story from Yahoo News? What kind of fascism is this? In the old capitalist days you simply cut any funding to people who were carrying out research into things you didn't like...

Pushing the envelope

This is an interesting story, which you may already have seen, about how to clone the new UK passport. It particularly annoys me when ignorant fuckers like Peter Hain and John Reid get up and tell the world that these things can't be copied, that they'll provide extra security and solve the populist xenophobic agenda of middle England when this technology will do nothing of the sort.

Free speech or safe trial?

The Guardian has succeeded in publishing a story the BBC failed to, citing public interest and press freedom to overturn an injunction. This is very positive as for once, it's a subject we should know about. This is a case where it is alleged that people sold the highest legal power through sitting in the House of Lords, in exchange for support in the highest political power through supporting general election campaigns.
However, let me put a slight dampener on the Guardian's success. What is more important: the paper telling us that this has happened or people being brought to justice? If the trial fails based on prejudicial material available to the public, what will the newspaper do then?
We can hope that the judge who refused the injunction did so safe in the knowledge that this would not affect a subsequent trial, but how confident can anyone be of that? The cynical among you might look at Shirley Porter and say this will never come to court anyway...

Premise of innocence

I don't want to always whinge about stuff, but isn't there a worrying tendency for the erosion of justice going on? Just take a look at how the government now wants to seize people's assets and place them under house arrest in case they commit a crime; and if that doesn't disturb you, just think of the children!

Guardian of good intentions

How can a newspaper that distributes so much unsollicited extra paper now recommend to us how we should recycle their bloody wallcharts?
Similarly, having been sent a scare-mongering brochure about people stealing my identity from Morgan Stanley that will be ok if I buy another product from them, they then sent me loads of credit cheques that I'll never use that I now need to shred in order to prevent my identity being compromised.
Fucking hypocrites.

Information's not free

This story's been in the offing for some time and is likely to go on for some time longer. The Department for Constitutional Affairs reckons it's too expensive to process Freedom of Information request, so is now going to refuse any request that would take more than 2.5 hours to process.

What's a little rich however is that the DCA reckons it costs £254 an hour for someone to consider a request, which tells me that the government has very poor information handling processes and very well paid staff. Of course, when this figure was questioned by a campaign group, the government refused to reveal how it calculated this amount.

If the cost of a particular request is so significant high, why doesn't the government charge the person requesting a fee? Or better still, why doesn't it just accept that this is a cost of government which we should be - or are already - paying for in taxes?

Sunday bloody Sunday

Let's consider some of the problems we face in the UK these days: a consumer culture that leads to high levels of debt, pollution and excessive energy consumption, <i>low-order</i> social crime... Can we name the root of these ailments? Evil, thy name is out-of-town Sunday shopping!
Let's consider the evidence.
On an environmental level, who can doubt the negative impact of these retail monstrosities? Built on playing fields or flood plains, their tarmac testifies to our conservational negligence and irresponsible, unthinking short-termism. There's no creeping nostalgia in this observation: I don't believe that retail parks have corrupted arcadia. They have, however, usurped our breathing space to supplant it with an iron lung.
For now our weekend pursuit is to shop. We shop at weekends because we're too busy to find time in the week. Because there's nothing else to do. Because it's a social event; though there's rampant social exclusion. You can't partake if you have a poor credit rating, where a hoodie, or have to work at weekends...
Let me return briefly to the credit aspect. Consumer culture, to which these retail parks stand as temples, thrives -- indeed relies -- on our weekly devotion and on the widow's mite. Supermarkets don't care if you can afford to <i>taste the diference</i>, or need the latest gadget: you're there to buy, on anyone's money. Seven-day-a-week social shopping doubtless encourages this.
For this is the opportunity for people to herd around a water hole. The retail parks like to give us the impression it's all yummy mummies in Starbuck's, but in reality, it's mostly teenagers whose playing fields have been concreted over. They don't go to Starbuck's but head instead to KFC or McDonald's: so not only do they lose out on an environment in which to exercise, they gorge to obesity on trans-fatty acids. Then, high on sugars and preservatives, they roam the mobile 'phone stores until one can summon the courage to accost an off-licence.
So what we're looking at is an invention that ruins our environment, causes social and economic strife and ruins my Sundays. Can anyone rid us of this social blight?

When a rule is not a rule

Now we're being told by a member of the cabinet, the most powerful body in our government, who has never been elected, that human rights are relative. Lord Falconer wants to enshrine the principle that one person's rights cannot be used to "trump" the public's right to safety. In other words, there's no such thing as a fundamental human right. If you (i.e. the government) can demonstrate you're protecting public safety, you can do what you like to any number of individuals.
As I pointed out in my previous entry, the U.S. has already agreed a law that allows governments to define what constitutes torture; we're now only a short step from this ourselves. Perhaps when the Lord Chancellor tells us our rights are as British as beer he means that they don't apply to Muslims?
Let's extend this a little further. Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? So, if I walk out onto a pedestrian crossing in front of a bus, should it stop? There are more people on the bus and their safety would be compromised by an emergency stop, even though I'm on a zebra crossing.
And does this apply just to safety? If the majority of a company's employees are male and the company is successful, why should it jeopardise its corporate culture by employing a woman?
The purpose of government is to benefit individuals in ways that they could not achieve as individuals: provide education, security, infrastructure that no single individual could implement. Constraining individual rights in the name of a common good is the complete antithesis of this principle.

Tortuous arguments

As the US introduces new legislation that effectively allows politicians to define what constitutes torture as it suits them, and a recent survey by the BBC shows increasing public support for abuse of suspects, I thought I'd point you in the direction of an interesting discussion on the subject.

Terrifying

This article from the Register says a lot about how I feel terrorism is being judged currently in this country.

What are our rights?

Is the irony not lost on anyone that a man taking his case to the European Court of Human Rights is being sponsored by the UK Independence Party?
The case concerns obliging car owners to identify the driver when caught on speed camera. Is this self-incrimination? If so, why has this case never been raised when the right to silence was withdrawn? And aren't those involved yet again confusing us with the U.S., where the fifth amendment would prevent this sort of thing? And what about protecting others from the law? Isn't there some degree of obligation to "shop" people who have behaved recklessly? I'd never speed myself, obviously.
It seems slightly fatuous that the payment of a speeding fine should be the trigger that defines whether we have a right to silence in criminal investigations. When are we allowed to protect ourselves and those around us from prosecution? What precedents will the impending ruling set? And at what point should we face up to the consequences of our actions?

cui bono

So, Labour's in disarray according to anyone with a page or time slot to fill; and yes, I recognize the irony of commenting on that myself. Some have more to say than others: about 1/3 of the Guardian's front page is pictures of briefcases... Nevertheless, while Clarke, Hewitt and Prescott do their utmost to embarass themselves, you have to ask who benefits from these shambles? Clearly there are local elections next week, so this would appear to be a great opportunity for Labour's rivals.
The Tories are on shaky ground trying to make political capital here: they can't play the Prescott sleaze card without calling a kettle black, no swing voters could seriously trust them to improve the NHS and their election strategy seems to consist of Dave Cameron standing on a Norwegian ice floe.
The Lib Dems meanwhile couldn't organize a leadership election among MPs let alone run an effective local election campaign nationally, so what hope does their dynamic "Mingis" have?
Of course, both parties (and others) will reap the votes of the disaffected and Labour will have a poor Thursday night and Friday morning next week. The worse they do, the more pressure on the New Labour leadership and TB. Silent Gordon is clearly hoping for more skeletons to emerge over the next few days.

(Data)Base values

Is the government simply pandering to a populist agenda or has it completely lost the plot when it comes to databases? The latest wheeze is to get a list of anyone who has failed a Criminal Record Bureau check that debars them from working with children and (although the BBC seems to think it's designed for schools) allow any Tom, Dick or Rebekkah Wade jump to their own conclusions about which paedophile's house to attack first.
I really can't fathom this. Currently any person registering as a childminder has to pass a CRB check; they can't be listed as a childminder without going through this process, so all a parent has to do is ask for proof of registration. No school or private nursery can employee someone without having passed a CRB check. So what possible benefit does a database that anyone can access offer any of the vulnerable groups this legislation is supposedly safeguarding? It's just going to lead to abuse (by newspapers I expect) and errors.
The only consolation -- if you can call it that -- is that judging by some of the other registration schemes the government has tried to build over the last few years, they'll never get round to implementing this one. There's a high price to pay for necessary ineffectualness.

An interesting article to tide you over

Do Not Abuse

O, it is excellent
To have a giant's strength; but it is tyrannous
To use it like a giant.

Taking DNA samples from criminals is undoubtedly useful when it comes to diagnosing crimes. You simply swab the evidence, do a look-up against your criminal record database and go and pick up the culprit. There are of course ways to destroy DNA evidence on the crime scene -- chlorine in particular -- but generally it should put the fear into criminals who're on a register that they will be caught if they leave a single hair behind.
But that's about using evidence from the scene against people who have shown themselves to be a menace to society and may therefore be suspect: repeat offenders, particularly in violent crime. It is utterly different from rounding up any old person, taking a sample of their DNA and telling them that they have criminal propensities which are held against them for life. This is what's happening in the UK.
Currently the police can use any powers they choose -- mostly under prevention of terrorism -- to stop you, take a sample and hold it indefinitely. So it is that we find that those on the database represent less the targetted group of suspects from the original design, than a reflection of prejudice on the part of members of our police force. Accordingly, 37% of black men are held on the index (versus 9% of white), while there are 24,000 children have their DNA records stored indefinitely, irrespective of even charges being pressed. You simply have to be stopped and your DNA can be taken.
Why should anyone fear their presence on the list if they're not going to commit a crime, is the typical response. There are a number of issues, notwithstanding assumption of criminality being an infringement of our civil liberties. As biometric data is stored on passports and ID cards, the police will be able to track you wherever you travel -- indeed prevent you travelling should they choose, with no justification required. Moreover, this data can be shared, willfully or unwillingly. It may be stolen, or sold to insurance companies vetting your health or other profiles. If you don't believe me, you should see how wide the electoral register or your credit history are spread: political parties in the UK even used credit records to profile swing voters at the last general election.
I'm not trying to sound like there's a conspiracy theory out there where a police state is trying to monitor our every move: for a start the logistics in retaining so much data would be vast. There is nevertheless an erosion of values of liberty.
Slowly, progressively, irrevocably, the police and government request ever more pervasive rights. Each preceding erosion acts as a justificaiton of the next. We will, within 10 years, be carrying ID cards that hold this data and many people will have access to it, but it will do nothing to serve us.

Cartoon Violence

We've been enduring some more debate about "freedom of speech" recently; and as usual it stands on shaky ground, advocated unthinkingly by the blasé or in bad faith by the malevolent.
I have long been of the opinion that freedom of speech is not an inaliable right; indeed it is not enshrined by European countries in the same way as it is in the US constitution. You should earn your right to express your opinion. What gives anyone the right to spout any old bollocks? Or to libel someone? There should be a degree of self censorship, a sense of responsibility that we take to inform ourselves before we opine.
This means that if we say something malicious, we may be punished, just as the BNP tossers should be for their racist claptrap. Here they took time to gloss the Coran and foment prejudice, willfully and spitefully. But because we're so used to people reiterating nonsense on our TV screens everyday -- I'm not just looking at Fox here -- under the banner that they are allowed to express themselves, which juror who holds sympathy with some elements of BNP fallacies on multiculturalism and who sees a need for debate is going to convict these deeply spiteful and dishonest people?
But I didn't even want to talk about them; I wanted to talk about cartoons.
If ever there was one area of expression that needed to be informed, it was satire. What's the use of mocking someone's behaviour if it's so wide of the mark as to be unrecognisable? Unfortunately, the cartoons printed in Danish and French newspapers showing Mohammed as a bomber draw some resonance with their audience. They are more or less funny and more or less offensive. And so we have on the one hand police pulling aside young Asian men at Euston under an obscene prevention of terrorism act, and on the other Egyptians who fear that they can't travel to the UK because they are Muslim.
I digress, since my point is how the editors who publish these cartoons stake a claim to be allowed to do so. If we see cartoons in European papers mocking Jesus, we know people take offence, but we live in a suitably liberal society that most Christians recognise their way of life may be mocked and there is value in it. Many Muslims protesting about these cartoons do not live in such a liberal society and moreover do not wish to live in one. Their values should not be allowed to impose on our own society's values however.
If you see an inconsistency in this response to two arguments for freedom of speech, one for the BNP and one for the Danish press, look again. The former is indefensible because it impinges upon the way we should live our lives in tolerance; the latter is defensible because the reaction is based on intolerance. This is not to say that I agree with the cartoons themselves; one of the issues that Europeans have to face in this kind of religious satire is that when they mock Christianity, they mock a culture to which they themselves belong; they can argue that they're laughing with Christians. When they mock Islam, they are laughing at someone else.
Generally, my response to the cartoon is as such: the Danish paper should have been allowed to publish the cartoon but shouldn't have felt the need to; this was exacerbated in the case of France Soir which was well within its rights to publish, and there was no excuse for the owners to sack the editor; the reaction in some parts of the Muslim world has been wholly and unjustifiably racist against Danish society in general.
In summary, the whole episode simply reflects human stupidity. Can a cartoon really provoke such a violent response? When will these stubborn people from all parties recognise that they have to live with each others differences? There's ample scope for satire in that subject matter.
You can find some excellent comment and cartoons on Cagle's Web Log.

• Cartoon 1
• Cartoon 2
• Cartoon 3
• Cartoon 4
• Cartoon 5
• Cartoon 6
• Cartoon 7
• Cartoon 8
• Cartoon 9