RINF: Internet Marketing News » Surveillance, Civil Liberties & Human Rights News

New Zealand Widens DNA Database

Mick Meaney — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 02:45:09 +0000

A new law will allow police to collect DNA data at the same time they take fingerprints from people they intend to charge and match it against profiles from unsolved crimes. Previously New Zealand police could only take DNA samples after conviction or obtain an order from a High Court judge.

“Until now, DNA could be taken only with consent, or where there were judicially-approved suspect orders or police-issued compulsion orders, and only after conviction. This law will enable police to take full advantage of this modern-day fingerprint in order to solve cold cases and I have no doubt it will be a critical tool in the fight against violent crime,” says Justice Minister Simon Power.

“Police have also developed guidelines to avoid any arbitrary or unreasonable application of this power. I see this tool as doing as much for those who are innocent as for those who are found guilty of a crime.”

The DNA databank holds about 110,000 profiles and is expected to increase by 4000 each year.

New Zealand Widens DNA Database is a post from: Internet Marketing News | Webmaster Forum | Make Money Online | Guest Blogging

Front Towards Enemy – Apple i-spy

JasonP — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 01:53:58 +0000

In Old Russia you don’t listen to i-pod, i-pod listens to you.

Sounds like a throw away line form a spoof movie.. right?….

Actually its just a small part of what Apple Corporation has planned for its next series of cellular mp3 players. Still reeling from the jailbreaking ruling allowing users to replace software on their devices with hacked or patched version with less restrictions. Apple has applied for a patent to allow its cellular devices to listen, watch, monitor web usage, photograph the users face and if it deems that usage is unauthorised even report you to authorities.

Named ‘traitor-ware’ by Electronic Frontier Foundation for its ability to punish users whom dare to take advantage recent exemptions. Apple claims this is merely a step to protect i-pod users from theft and subsequent DRM violation or other ‘unauthorised use’. Apple has yet to offer guidelines and a time line of how collected data may be used and stored. Apple can even strip your device of personal data and store it in the cloud.

In most western countries laws pertaining to procedure to track and retrieve stolen mobile phones is already in place. Why would Apple feel the need to run its own counter intuitive measures for theft protection? It doesn’t! But rest assured that if Apple collects this data and stores it, its only a matter of time until authorities demand copies of this information.

So next time you are alone and you can feel the unmistakable sense that you are being watched, you are. Big Brother Jobs is watching you closely.

Front Towards Enemy – Apple i-spy is a post from: Internet Marketing News | Webmaster Forum | Make Money Online | Guest Blogging

Why does Turkey censor the Internet?

Mick Meaney — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 11:01:38 +0000

by KLAUS JURGENS

Has surfing the Net become a crime? Are we not entitled to live in a knowledge-based economy? We must resist the temptation to judge the Turkish civic liberties book by its cover and instead find out who the real players are behind the recent domestic crusade against the free flow of information.

Accepting “change” as a constant factor both in business as well as everyday life is no easy task. In many instances “change” is in fact linked to the advent of information technologies (IT). This article, actually, is perhaps based on online research done by visiting banned websites and clicking onto certain unrestricted Internet access providers that no court or politician can block, thereby bypassing the ban like everyone else in Turkey.

Both from a technical and judicial perspective, it is of course possible to limit access to the Internet for a specific geographic location or website. The question though is about the “why” and not the “how”; why would a government wish to censor the free flow of information, and in such a large capacity? Estimations for Turkey are surprisingly high. According to the BBC’s Jonathan Head (July 2, 2010) local campaigners for Internet freedom say that at present around 4,000 websites in Turkey are blocked.

While the Turkish government passed the initial law concerning the regulation of Internet sites in 2007 (Law No 5651, BBC ibid.) the Turkish courts were given the ultimate decision-making authority to enforce it; they were also granted the power to interpret which sites should be regulated. Since May 2008, the popular website YouTube has been added to the infamous list of banned websites, the court having concluded that several of the videos featured “criminal” activity. The sad truth is that many are still lost as to which “criminal offenses” the YouTube videos depicted.

In a remarkable piece of investigative journalism the BBC met with Chairwoman Tansel çölaşan of Turkey’s Atatürkist Thought Association (ADD) goes without saying that çölaşan is not at the forefront of promoting free speech, especially if it involves debate concerning Turkish politics. With the vindication of a strident Turkish nationalist, she speaks with very little concern about how foreigners might interpret the country’s free speech laws. She told the BBC: “(…) for us Atatürk is a symbol of democracy and women’s emancipation (…) I am not bothered by the impact of the court decision,” referring to the YouTube ban in particular.

As a matter of fact, the ADD itself is behind most complaints that ultimately led the government to engage in limiting the free access to the Internet. At the heart of the matter is the fact that foreign websites’ contributors have insulted the founder of the modern Turkish Republic, which in itself is considered a criminal offense in this country.

The question is, where do we draw the line in defending free speech? Let’s first step away from the specific issue of the Internet bans to focus on the free speech issue in a more generalized context. Should we, for example, ban movies with Louis de Funés because in one of them he portrayed a successful bank robber? Shall we eliminate national televised access to “Sponge Bob” because children see cartoon characters maiming each other for the sake of amusement?

It is time in Turkey for the government to decide if it is for free speech, with all of its complex social side effects, and to accept that people are able to discern for themselves what material is useful and appropriate. Banning Internet access defeats the point of the Internet in the first place, which is to provide widespread access to all kinds of information. With the current government ideology in place suggesting that the public is incapable of managing itself in the face of “criminal” imagery, the next “logical” step is then to ban satellite television, foreign print media an even (gasp!) cross-border travel. While pressure groups like the ADD are, of course, entitled to lobby the government, they should not attempt to run it.

Integrity begins at home. This life-long learning process operates on the assumption that over time we learn the difference between right and wrong. Insulting past leaders of certain countries may be an offense depending on local laws, but banning certain websites because less than 1 percent of their content may be offensive is a greater sin than any.

Maybe I am too optimistic, but democracies should mature. Either we need to accept that some people disagree with what we believe and let them publish it, or we move backwards into the Stone Age. If, for example, we need governments to tell us that becoming a suicide bomber is bad, mankind should urgently reconsider its state of affairs. Unhindered access to the Internet is a democratic right, not a privilege.

I wish to end my contribution by a quote that one of our readers sent in by Alfred Whitney Griswold: “Books won’t stay banned. They won’t burn. Ideas won’t go to jail. In the long run of history, the censor and the inquisitor have always lost. The only weapon against bad ideas is better ideas.” (New York Times, Feb. 24, 1959)

Why does Turkey censor the Internet? is a post from: Internet Marketing News | Webmaster Forum | Make Money Online | Guest Blogging

Spyware on your phone?

Mick Meaney — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:54:14 +0000

How suspicious spouses, protective parents, and concerned companies are turning to cheap and hard-to-detect commerical spyware apps to monitor your mobile communications.

Sometime in early 2007, Richard Mislan, an assistant professor of cyberforensics at Purdue University, started getting phone calls and e-mails from people around the world—all looking for help with the same problem. “They thought someone was listening in on their cell-phone calls,” he says. “They wanted to know what they could do to confirm it was happening.”

Mislan, who has examined thousands of phones at the Purdue Cyber Forensics Lab, politely disregarded some callers as a little paranoid. Others, he thought, had reason to be concerned. A decade ago the idea that anyone with little technical skill could turn a cell phone into a snooping device was basically unrealistic. But as the smart-phone market proliferates—it grew 86 percent in the United States alone last year—so do all the ethical kinks that come with it. Among them is a growing sector of perfectly legal smart-phone spyware apps that are peddled as tools for catching a cheating spouse or monitoring the kids when they’re away from home. But what they can effectively do, for as little as $15 or as much as several hundred, is track a person with a precision once relegated to federal authorities. “Not only can you look at a person’s e-mail or listen to their calls, in some cases you can also just turn on the microphone [on a smart phone] and listen to what the person is doing any time you want,” says Chris Wysopal, cofounder and CTO of Veracode, a software-security company.

Turning what is essentially cell-phone-bugging software into a business model is not a bad idea, technically speaking. The smart-phone market—largely dominated by the Symbian, Research in Motion, and iPhone operating systems—has 47 million users in the United States and is expected to exceed 1 billion worldwide by 2014, according to Parks Associates, a market-research firm. In most cases, people’s lives are tethered to these handsets. It’s how we e-mail, text, search, and, on occasion, even call someone. And the dependence just continues to grow. Last year consumers paid for and downloaded more than 670 million apps that can turn a phone into everything from a book reader to a compass. Smart-phone users effectively carry a real-time snapshot of what happens in their daily lives. This is what makes the smart phone the perfect way to track someone.

Among the top commercial spyware vendors who have ventured into this space are FlexiSPY, MobiStealth, and Mobile Spy. While the services vary, what they do is essentially the same. According to all three spyware Web sites, a person must have legal access to a smart phone to install a piece of spyware. For example, if you’re spying on a family member, that means the phone is family property. If you’re an employer monitoring your employee, the phone should be company-owned. To install the spyware, you have to have the phone in your possession for at least a few minutes to download the app. (There are apps that can be downloaded remotely, but that’s less common and not legal.) In Mobile Spy’s case, once the software is installed, you can log into your Mobile Spy web account to view e-mails, text messages, pictures taken, videos shot, calendar entries, incoming and outgoing calls, and GPS coordinates. MobiStealth and FlexiSPY take it a step further and allow a person to remotely record any conversations that take place near the cell phone. “The most threatening [part] is that it’s pretty impossible to tell if this is happening to you,” says Mislan. That’s because once the spyware app is on the phone it is virtually undetectable to the average user. There is no typical corresponding app icon, nor is it listed on any menu. At best, it may show up with a generic name like “iPhone app” or “BlackBerry app,” so that it appears to be a regular part of the system.

There is nothing illegal about making these apps, and almost all makers have disclaimers on their Web sites warning people not to use their products illegally. “Our software is for very specific uses,” says Craig Thompson, support coordinator of Retina-X Studios, the creator of Mobile Spy. “We do what we can to discourage innappropriate use.” Still, there is no way to know if someone is using the app to monitor his or her child (legal) or stalk an ex (not so much). Illegal use of spyware has already been reported in states such as Washington, Oklahoma, and Texas. According to Wysopal of Veracode, in addition to state and local laws, the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the Wiretap Act technically offer some protection for consumers. But even if someone discovers spyware on their phone, prosecuting the perpetrator can be difficult. “The problem with this law is the crime has to rise to the level of a felony for the FBI to investigate, [and] that typically involves $5,000 or more in damages,” Wysopal says. “I don’t really know what the damages are for someone installing [mobile spyware] and reading your e-mails.”

Jeff Troy, acting deputy assistant director for the FBI’s Cyber Division, says the issue is a growing concern for his organization because of how fast the smart-phone market is evolving. “I do think there is need for additional cyber laws to address this,” he says.

Until that happens, the best solution may well be preventive. According to BlackBerry maker Research in Motion, “BlackBerry smartphones include a firewall that can be set to prevent an app (like spyware) from making external connections; and passwords can also be required to authorize downloading an application to the device.” Google’s Android gives apps limited access to phone resources by default, but that can be changed manually, so the best bet is to lock the phone and/or SIM card whenever you’re not using it. Google has also recently activated a “kill switch” on its phone to remotely disable apps “that violate the Android Market Developer Distribution Agreement or other legal agreements, laws, regulations or policies.” Of the trio, Apple probably has the most user-friendly safety net, because all apps must be approved by its app store. To even get most spyware apps on an Apple iPhone, a person would have to jailbreak it, which voids the warranty.

If the software is already on a phone, Mislan says there is little that consumers can do on their own to confirm this. Even if you’re positive you are being spied on, doing something like replacing the SIM card is not always enough to wipe a phone clean of the problem. In some cases, Mislan advises consumers to reach out to companies like SMobile Systems that offer security solutions for cell phones—a growing market in themselves.

Wysopal says that as with so much that’s technology-related, something big has to break before things change in the smart phone–spyware space. “You’ll have to see someone important, like a politician, have their phone compromised,” he says. “If that happened, it would be a wake-up call.”

Spyware on your phone? is a post from: Internet Marketing News | Webmaster Forum | Make Money Online | Guest Blogging

New anti-slavery legislation and the workplace

Mick Meaney — Tue, 11 May 2010 17:12:49 +0000

By Kirstie Skeaping

It is now a criminal offence to hold a person in servitude, so what does this mean for employers and their staff?
The latest round of employment law changes saw new legislation coming into place on 6 April making it a criminal offence to hold a person in slavery or servitude, or to require them to perform forced or compulsory labour. Any person found guilty of the new offence can face up to 14 years in prison under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

So what is the impact on employers? Does this mean an end to unpaid overtime, or limit rights to increase production targets, or give employees rights to greater benefits? The answer to all of the above is no.

Definition

Fortunately, the concept of ‘forced labour’ is not found in the normal day-to-day contract of employment, no matter how much an employee may sometimes feel like it is. The fact is that an employee is normally given an option of whether or not to work for a particular employer.

In order to be forced labour, there has to be a level of coercion or deception beyond the ordinary. Poor pay and long hours will not be sufficient to lead to a breach of the new legislation.

There are many responsible employers in a number of sectors such as agriculture, construction or hospitality that depend to a large extent on low-cost, seasonal labour. The new legislation will not interfere with these employment arrangements, as workers are already protected through the Working Time Regulations and national minimum wage legislation.

Evidence

Allegations that the employer is committing an offence under the new anti-slavery legislation will have to be supported by something out of the ordinary. For example, there could be evidence that an employee’s documents, such as a passport, were being withheld by the employer. Or it could be a case that the worker was being forced to live or remain in a particular area, perhaps in poor accommodation – or that the employer was not paying agreed wages.

In establishing forced or compulsory labour, an element of coercion or deception between the employer and worker will need to be shown. And the circumstances will need to be such that the employer knew the arrangement was oppressive and not truly voluntary, or had been willfully blind to that fact.

Target

The legislation is targeted at protecting migrant workers in particular who may speak little English, are totally unaware of their employment rights, and who do not know how or where to report what is happening to them.

For employers that comply with current employment laws, this new legislation will have no impact on their day-to-day dealings with staff. There are no new legal obligations or restrictions. It has been introduced for the laudable purpose of creating clear criminal liability for those few employers that are exploiting the most vulnerable workers.

New anti-slavery legislation and the workplace is a post from: Internet Marketing News | Webmaster Forum | Make Money Online | Guest Blogging

Pentagon bans journalists from Guantanamo trial

Mick Meaney — Mon, 10 May 2010 14:33:24 +0000

By Scott Horton

The Gates Pentagon has decided to ban four journalists from covering the Guantánamo proceedings. The Washington Post’s Jeff Stein reports:

The Pentagon said they were expelling the reporters because they had revealed the name of a former U.S. interrogator whose name is under protective order — but is widely known. The four are Carol Rosenberg of the Miami Herald and three Canadian reporters, Michelle Shephard of the Toronto Star, Paul Koring of the Globe & Mail, and Steven Edwards of Canwest. The papers can send other reporters to cover the prosecution of Omar Khadr, a Canadian picked [up] by American forces in Afghanistan when he was 15, the Pentagon said. He is now 23.

The U.S. interrogator at the center of the ban controversy was all but identified during a pre-trial hearing earlier in the week, when Khadr’s defense attorney asked a question about a detainee made to kiss the American’s boots. One of the banned reporters, the Toronto Star’s Shephard, has written a book on the Khadr case, “Guatanamo’s Child.” Marine Corps Col. Dave Lapan, director of Defense Press Operations, told the newspapers that their reporters had “violated established and agreed-upon ground rules governing reporting on Military Commissions proceedings at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.” “Specifically, your reporters published the name of a witness whose identity was protected in court,” Lapan said.

There is more to this than meets the eye, because the identity of the interrogator is already a matter of public knowledge, and more than these four publications have already disclosed the name. The interrogator gave an on-the-record interview to the Tortonto Star in 2008 and was court-martialed in September 2005, with press accounts giving his name and a specification of the charges against him. He appeared on camera in an Oscar-winning documentary in which he discussed the process of detainee abuse as it was practiced at the Bagram detention facility in Afghanistan. The notion that his name is a secret is therefore absurd. The order seems to be a pretext for blocking coverage of Guantánamo by critical media. The reporters banned by this order are those who have done the most in-depth coverage of the case of Omar Khadr, who was seized as a child by U.S. forces in Afghanistan and harshly abused—in the view of one of his own interrogators, tortured—during his custody.

Spencer Ackermann writes in the Washington Independent:

Rosenberg is the single most diligent, consistent and experienced Guantanamo Bay reporter in the world, having carved out the Guantanamo beat steadily almost since the detention facility here opened in 2002 and traveled here more frequently than any other journalist. (I personally heard complaints about her from public affairs officers here five years ago — and those complaints amounted to whining about how dogged an investigator she was.) Koring and Edwards have also been invaluable resources about Khadr and Guantanamo to their colleagues these past two weeks.

The Pentagon public-affairs officers would prefer a different sort of reporting–one that regurgitates their own news feed, perhaps with a slight admixture of comments from defense counsel who are themselves subject to tight restrictions about what they can say to the media. Unfortunately, that is exactly what the bulk of major media covering the proceedings at Guantánamo produce.

Things are going very poorly for the Defense Department at Guantánamo. When the proceedings convened, it was learned that the Defense Department had prepared a new set of procedural rules, written entirely in secret without following standard procedures that envisage consultation with the bar. The initial hearings then had to be adjourned so that the prosecutors, defense counsel, and judge could read the new rules. Under international law standards that the Supreme Court ruled binding on the United States in Hamdan, the military commissions are only valid if they are a “regularly constituted court.” There is little doubt that proceedings in the American military-justice tradition, applying the rules normally used in courts martial, would have met this test. But the Guantánamo commissions have departed from those traditions at every turn, making clear that they are “irregular.” The embarrassing secret dealings surrounding the rules coupled with blatant retaliation against critical media serve to highlight their illegitimacy before the actual transactions of the court are even examined.

At this point the only way out for the Obama Administration is to arrange a plea bargain for Khadr. The case is now so thoroughly compromised that any other outcome will only be a further embarrassment.

Pentagon bans journalists from Guantanamo trial is a post from: Internet Marketing News | Webmaster Forum | Make Money Online | Guest Blogging

ID card officials back away from scandal-hit database

Mick Meaney — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 18:35:57 +0000

Government plans to store ID card biometrics data on a controversial system used by thousands of public workers might be scrapped.

Tony Collins

The Home Office has confirmed it is reconsidering plans to use the Customer Information System system to store biometric data for the ID card scheme.

The Customer Information System (CIS) – which is run by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) – has yet to meet the Cabinet Office’s latest standards on IT security, Computer Weekly has learned.

Computer Weekly revealed in August that thirty four council staff accessed the CIS database to snoop on the personal records of celebrities and acquaintances. Nine of the council workers were sacked.

The CIS database holds information on 85 million citizens, and is the government’s main citizen database. It is available to 140,000 users from eight government departments, and to 445 local authorities.

But it is proving difficult for the Department of Work of Pensions to allow thousands of public workers and local authorities to access the CIS Oracle-based database, yet keep it demonstrably secure.

The Home Office revealed plans to use the CIS system for ID cards in December 2006 in its Strategic Action Plan for the National Identity Scheme.

In the Strategic Action Plan for the National Identity Scheme, the Home Office said: “We plan to use DWP’s Customer Information System (CIS) technology, subject to the successful completion of technical feasibility work,” for National Identity Register biographical information.

It added: “DWP’s CIS technology is already used to hold records for everyone who has a National Insurance number – i.e. nearly everyone in the UK.”

The Home Office planned to separate DWP’s citizen data on the CIS information from the biometrics store being built up on the National Identity Register.

Now the government plans to avoid using CIS for the ID card scheme, if possible. A spokesman for the Home Office said using CIS is no more than an option for the future.

He said the possibility of using CIS will not be considered until the system has full security accreditation, which is due in 2010 at the earliest.

The Home Office will store biometric information for ID cards on a database run by Thales, one of the maincontractors for the ID card scheme.

Officials had planned to use CIS for the ID card scheme to save money. It would have allowed the government to avoid building an entirely new system and security architecture.

But Computer Weekly has learned that the security of the CIS has been so discredited that officials are keen to distance the ID card scheme from it, even if this means paying for a new system from scratch.

ID card officials back away from scandal-hit database is a post from: Internet Marketing News | Webmaster Forum | Make Money Online | Guest Blogging

Police in Wales have taken DNA samples from more than 55,000 innocent people

Mick Meaney — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:15:46 +0000

POLICE in Wales have taken DNA samples from more than 55,000 innocent people, we can reveal.

Almost half of these – an estimated 23,651 – were taken by South Wales Police alone, costing the force a whopping £1.5m.

In total, the nation’s four police forces have spent an estimated £3.4m in gathering DNA samples from innocent people.

But, while the Government estimates that one in five people on the national DNA database are innocent of any crime, they have admitted they have NO IDEA what the real amount could be.

Since 2001, police have taken DNA samples from anyone they arrest or caution, even if no charges are brought against them. Current law allows an innocent person’s DNA profile to be kept for up to 12 years.

With an estimated 4.5 million profiles, the DNA database for England and Wales is the largest in the world, and includes adults and children as young as 10 who have been accused of such crimes as:

n Taking a bicycle without consent;

n Begging;

n Failing to provide a breath specimen;

n Taking part in an illegal demonstration;

n Being drunk in a public place.

Human rights campaigners Liberty called for the database to simply hold details of sexual and violent offenders, which would save millions of pounds of public money.

Liberty’s legal officer, Anna Fairclough, told Wales on Sunday: “The Government is fond of justifying its retention of innocents’ DNA with the trite phrase: ‘nothing to hide, nothing to fear’. Those affected do not agree. They have done no wrong and they deeply resent their DNA profiles being held alongside those of murderers and rapists.”

The figures for Wales were revealed in parliamentary questions put forward by Jenny Willott, the Lib Dem MP for Cardiff Central, over a space of two years.

They reveal a massive database with DNA profiles belonging to 268,853 people in Wales, 55,922 of whom are estimated to be innocent.

In North Wales, 12,014 innocent people’s profiles were gathered by police, while Gwent collected 10,382 and Dyfed Powys took 9,875.

Ms Willott will lead a Welsh Liberal Democrat campaign to call on the chief constables of each Welsh police force to allow innocent people to have their DNA profile deleted.

Clare Hutchinson, Wales Online

In an open letter to Barbara Wilding, chief constable of South Wales Police, Ms Willott calls the database, “disproportionate, unethical, costly and ineffective”.

Speaking exclusively to Wales on Sunday, she urged people in Wales who believe they might be on the database to write to police asking for their DNA profile to be destroyed.

She said: “It is appalling that the Government is still allowing innocent people to be put on the DNA database when they know it is a blatant breach of their human rights.

“Storing the DNA of people who have never been convicted of a crime, for the rest of their life, is a violation of a founding pillar of our justice system – innocent until proven guilty.

“The Government is moving at a snail’s pace. Over 300,000 innocent people’s DNA has been added to the database since the practice was ruled illegal, including 6,000 people in South Wales.

“Those affected in South Wales should use the template letter and advice on my website to write to the Chief Constable to ask for their DNA to be removed.

“Welsh Chief Constables have the power to remove innocent people from the database and to start to restore the faith in our criminal justice system that Labour has eroded. It is now up to them.”

The Association of Chief Police Officers said the matter was for South Wales Police, who were last night unavailable for comment.

Police in Wales have taken DNA samples from more than 55,000 innocent people is a post from: Internet Marketing News | Webmaster Forum | Make Money Online | Guest Blogging

ID cards snubbed in Manchester

Mick Meaney — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 12:03:11 +0000

Matthew Davis

ONLY 8,000 people have enquired about getting the government’s controversial ID cards, which will be launched in Manchester.

During a live webchat at the M.E.N offices, Lord Bill Brett, the minister responsible for the introduction of the ID card scheme, admitted only a small percentage of the population had asked about the voluntary scheme.

The cards will cost £30 and contain biometric details of holders.

They can be used in place of a passport throughout Europe.

Lord Brett hopes the cards, available in Manchester in October, will be rolled out across the north west by 2010, and eventually the rest of the country.

He said he foresaw the cards becoming ‘the accepted form of ID in the UK’.

But a poll on this website revealed 81 per cent would not be taking part in the trial.

Lord Brett said: “We have not set targets for what is a purely voluntary scheme, but our research shows a majority of people support ID cards.

“We are confident that support and the number of ID cards will grow incrementally in the period from its introduction in Manchester to the ongoing rollout across the country.

“A lot of opposition to the cards has been based on fear from misconception and mischievousness. I don’t believe the initiative is doomed to failure, rather that it will grow over time to become the accepted form of ID, as the voluntary ID card in France has become.”

The cards will be valid for 10 years.

Lord Brett admitted the cards would not by themselves ‘provide a silver bullet’ in the fight against terrorism, but he said: “The security services and the police believe it will be a helpful tool in that task.”

The minister claimed the cards would provide ‘a secure and unique identity’ for holders. He said they would be targeted in particular at young people, who he said had ‘problems with security and identification’.

He said: “They will have all the information they need on one card. This will assist young people who want to buy cigarettes, alcohol, and in a city like Manchester with a lively nightlife, they can access clubs and bars while also having a document that protects against fraud and allows travel through Europe.”

Lord Brett, admitted that the cards – which should be available from 2012 to all British citizens aged 16 and over – could be scrapped by a future government.

He said: “No government can bind its successors.”

Lord Brett stressed the government had ‘no intention to make ID cards compulsory’. Asked why Manchester had been chosen for the pilot, he said: “Manchester is a major city, with a large young population, a large university and major airport.”

ID cards snubbed in Manchester is a post from: Internet Marketing News | Webmaster Forum | Make Money Online | Guest Blogging

Police admit CCTV not effective – solves less than 1 crime per year

Mick Meaney — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 04:47:29 +0000

Ewan Turney

The news takes on extra relevance for pubs after reports of several police forces in parts of the country, including Islington, Richmond and Liverpool, objecting to licence applications where venues don’t agree to use fit CCTV.

Each case helped by the use of CCTV costs around £20,000, according to the Telegraph, which obtained the information under the Freedom of Information Act.

A Met Police report said: “For every 1,000 cameras in London, less than one crime is solved per year.”

Tory David Davis told the paper: “CCTV leads to massive expense and minimum effectiveness. It creates a huge intrusion on privacy, yet provides little or no improvement in security.”

The Infomation Commissoner’s Officer (ICO) also voiced its concerns about CCTV in pubs earlier this year.

It said: “Hardwiring surveillance into the UK’s pubs raises serious privacy concerns.

“We recognise that CCTV plays an important role in the prevention and detection of crime, and can help to reduce crime in areas of high population density, such as city boroughs.

“However we are concerned at the prospect of landlords being forced into installing CCTV in pubs as a matter of routine in order to meet the terms of a licence.

“The use of CCTV must be reasonable and proportionate if we are to maintain public trust and confidence in its deployment. Installing surveillance in pubs to combat specific problems of rowdiness and bad behaviour may be lawful, but hardwiring in blanket measures where there is no history of criminal activity is likely to breach data protection requirements.”

Police admit CCTV not effective – solves less than 1 crime per year is a post from: Internet Marketing News | Webmaster Forum | Make Money Online | Guest Blogging