Words fail.
Posts by author:
Maria
Daniel Davies lives in the south east of England and likes Brahms.
There, I’ve said it.
Now, how much could I be fined for breaking data protection law? If I also mention that, perhaps, one of Daniel’s legs is longer than the other, or that he’s a poor sleeper (invoking protections for sensitive medical data), I may be liable for a 450 euro fine.
Sounds crazy? Well, the European Court of Justice handed down last week a ruling about a Swedish parish council that should put the fear of god into bloggers who make comments about us Europeans and our hobbies.
Why is it that people with ‘real’ illnesses like heart disease, cancer or ‘flu can receive unqualified sympathy and support, while those suffering from an equally organic illness like depression are so often told to ‘just snap out of it’?
Last Friday night, I went along with a friend to a cello recital in the Marais, an arty area of Paris. We missed the right door three times in the dark, but finally found our way upstairs, through an ordinary old apartment building complete with post boxes, lights on a timer, little old ladies and exhortations to keep the door shut, to the last remaining temple in Europe of Comte’s humanist religion, the Chapel of Humanity.
“Peu de gens devineront combien il a fallu être triste pour ressusciter Carthage.”
Next week the body that oversees the technical co-ordination of the internet, ICANN, meets at Carthage in Tunisia. The top item on the agenda, for anyone who cares about privacy and freedom of expression, is the WHOIS database. This is the set of data of domain name owners which was originally collected so that network administrators could find and fix technical problems and keep the internet running smoothly.
Of course no collection of personal data can remain long without various interests campaigning to open it up to a variety of unintended uses. In this case, those interests include IP rights holders, law enforcement, oppressive regimes, stalkers, and of course spammers.
Well, strike me dead. BBC news online reports that Jim Caviezel, who’s playing Jesus in Mel Gibson’s controversial film, has been struck by lightning. And an assistant director too, him for the second time. Apparently it actually is true that people struck by lightning have smoke come out of their ears (how? how? where does it come from?).
Well, first off, I think I can always be relied on to lower the tone of CT. And since I’m in the middle of a nightmare flat-moving extravaganza this is probably all I’ll have to say for a while.
I’ve started getting text messages from a french mobile number I don’t recognize. One from the other night started;
“J’ss tte nue, tu vns ch moi ce soir?…”
It’s a bright day for the rainbow of opponents who lobbied all summer against the excesses of the European software patenting directive. News.com reports that the European Parliament voted yesterday to pass the extremely unpopular software patent directive. The European Parliament could have thrown out the directive, but instead lumbered it with some amendments that may make it too difficult to implement in the member states. Though the result is messy, the EP’s vote has allowed common sense (and the conclusions of independent research) to prevail. It strikes a blow against oligopoly and tries to keep the way open for truly competitive innovation. (see some economists dismiss as daft the idea that software patenting creates economic growth.)
This directive should have been a relatively straightforward housekeeping exercise in making sure patents are enforced in all EU countries. But it opened another front in the war to extend intellectual property rights protection to every half-decent or half-baked idea any Dilbert can come up with.
Aside from the immediate analysis of the directive and its aftermath, there is some more food for thought; firstly, the benefit, if any, for the US in pressing for these extensions, and secondly, the contempt with which the Commission has treated the European Parliament.
Thomas Friedman’s piece today on the link between Cancun and the war on terror is a little flip, a little glib, but basically on the money.
Reminds me of Will’s monologue in Good Will Hunting on why not to join the NSA …
(though of course Friedman’s less sharp, less funny and also, sadly, not Matt Damon).
Hotspots are multiplying all over the place, not just in Stateside Starbucks’, but even along the Paris metro. The only time I’ve used wifi so far was at CFP 2003 where it came in extremely handy for blogging the event. But think of it; free internet, wherever you go – how great is that going to be?
The UK Adam Smith Institute has started its own blog. It’s quite a good, snappy read, and the first few days cover many of the hoary old chestnuts you might expect; how vouchers are the panacea for under-performing public services, how Naomi Klein attacks branding, but actually is a brand herself (fair enough), and how, erm, left-wingers are too angry and put upon to be funny.
It’s worth keeping a look at to see how this blog develops. Though, as with other more ‘corporate’ blogs, the house style is a bit uniform. There seems to be a word limit on entries which has the effect of making the pieces sound a bit samey, and also rather superficial.
Funnily enough, on my way back from lunch today I was giving out (extremely superficially) that all the rich seem to do is distort markets by defending their privileges and/or monopoly rents. While the ASIs of this world seem to spend their time defending these guys (you know, ‘the rich’, i.e. suitably vague) – e.g. saying embezzlement and fraud should be dealt with by companies, not law enforcement – it seems to me that the really rich have no interest at all in truly competitive markets. Just ask Bill Gates, Halliburton, et al. And then the conversation turned to whether George Bush was a kleptocrat, plutocrat or just a plain old vanilla flavoured oligarch…
Maybe there’s a joke in there, but I was too down-trodden to see it.
A few years ago, two friends of mine were walking with a Danish friend through Copenhagen one evening. As they passed the parliament building, a vaguely familiar man walked out. Their Danish friend smiled and said ‘good night’. The man responded in kind, and headed for a bus stop. It was Nyrup Rasmussen, the prime minister of the day.
The queen of Denmark is regularly to be seen walking alone through the main shopping thoroughfare of Copenhagen. Sweden is similar. In the country that gave the world Ombudsmen, part of government openness means that senior politicians walk openly and freely amongst the public, and generally disdain body guards.
Another anecdote; a journalist friend described interviewing Chris Patten when Patten was with the Northern Ireland office during the 1980s. The conversation continued as Patten walked to his car, got down on his knees and thoroughly examined the underneath, before standing up again and opening the car-door. All the time speaking as if nothing out of the ordinary was happening. Imagine incorporating that kind of personal risk (and risk to your family) into your daily routine.
Anna Lindh, Sweden’s rising political star, did not survive the multiple stab wounds she received while out shopping with a friend on Wednesday afternoon. As she was someone who championed openness in government, it will be a terrible shame if her legacy must be a distancing of Swedish politicians from the people they represent.
Open Democracy has an essay from a political commentator and long time friend of Lindh. The Economist considers how her death will affect the euro referendum in Sweden.
Last Sunday, the Archbishop of Paris sent a letter to be read out in every parish Mass. It remembered the thousands of people who died in last month’s heatwave, reminded us of our obligations to the weak and the marginalised in our society, and asked us to pray for the souls of the dead. It added pathos to the now difficult to grasp number of dead; 15,000. The unclaimed dead were buried by the state in simple but respectful civil ceremonies. But many Catholics (and presumably those of other religions too) who had been regular churchgoers were buried without religious rites because their bodies had not been claimed in time. Parish priests who knew their parishioners well did not have the right to insist on Christian burials. This is probably as it should be. But somehow, the idea of people dying at home, alone (as most of the dead in Paris did) without the last rites, and not being received into the arms of their churches on death, made it all seem even sadder.
“The legislative measures which I have outlined will protect and enhance our rights – not diminish them, justice for individuals are reaffirmed and justice for the majority and the security of our nation will be secured.” So David Blunkett told Parliament when he introduced the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, in autumn 2001. The Act allowed the UK to derogate from Article 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 9 of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights concerning the liberty and security of individuals. Today, the UK is still in the ‘state of emergency’ used to justify these derogations to its international human rights commitments.
“I don’t want anyone to be under the misapprehension that some group of very innocent individuals who just wandered into this country are somehow going to be banged away for life.” Last week, three law lords ruled that the House of Lords should hold a hearing on the legality of the indefinite detention without charge of a dozen foreign nationals.
On the use of Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to stop and search 995 anti-war protesters at an RAF base earlier this year; “The Terrorism Act 2000 is not being applied in the prevention of protests at RAF Fairford. Powers under this legislation are applied solely for the prevention and investigation of acts of terrorism.” On the use of Section 44 to stop and search protesters outside an arms fair in London this week; “I have asked that the head of the counter-terrorism branch should report back on why it was that they chose to use that particular part of the counter terrorism legislation rather than wider public order legislation.” UK police forces cannot use Section 44 without informing the Secretary of State. The Act in question is intended to target terrorists, not citizens invoking freedom of expression and assembly in a democratic country. Either Blunkett is giving the nod to using terrorism legislation to curb legitimate protesters, or the police are running out of control.
“We could live in a world which is airy fairy, libertarian, where everybody does precisely what they like and we believe the best of everybody and then they destroy us”. Or we could live in a country where the foremost legal experts believe human rights have been fatally undermined by the ‘war on terror’; the Law Society of England and Wales*, Liberty, and Amnesty International. Surely there is a middle ground.
On seeing the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act through Parliament; ‘I genuinely think that the British people will say, “Well done. Parliament has shown itself in a good light and we are proud of what you have done.”‘
Update
Statewatch reports on use of Section 44 too, noting that while peace protesters were detained under terrorism legislation outside the arms fair in London. Inside, there are cluster bombs a-plenty for sale. Using terrorism provisions police have arrested two protesters for “behaving suspiciously”.
Disclosure; I wrote the chapters on communications data retention and Third Pillar powers.
Next month I plan to go to Washington D.C. for a fellowship event of the 21st Century Trust. But with the new visa rules to the US, I can’t simply rely on being white and English-speaking to get me through immigration without a scratch. Luckily, citizens of countries belonging to the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) won’t need a visa as long as they have a machine readable passport. My passport isn’t ‘machine readable’, so from 1st October I’ll need to either have a new passport or apply for visa.