Exclusive: Storm over Big Brother database

Early plans to create a giant “Big Brother” database holding information about every phone call, email and internet visit made in the UK were last night condemned by the Government’s own terrorism watchdog.

Lord Carlile of Berriew QC, the independent reviewer of anti-terrorist laws, said the “raw idea” of the database was “awful” and called for controls to stop government agencies using it to conduct fishing expeditions into the private lives of the public.

Today the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, is expected to signal the Government’s intention to press ahead with proposals to collect more details about people’s phone, email and web-browsing habits as she warns that the terrorist threat to Britain is growing.

The controversial measure will be included as a way of combating terrorism in the Data Communications Bill, which is to be introduced in the Queen’s Speech in December. Ministers are known to be considering the creation of a single database holding all the information, which would include phone numbers dialled and addresses to which emails are sent but not details of phone conversations or the contents of emails.

An increasing number of influential figures from across the political spectrum have expressed growing alarm over the scale of the proposals that would give the state unprecedented access into the lives of its citizens.

Lord Carlile described the government’s recent track record on handling public data as an “unhappy one”, and said that searches of a new database should only be carried out with the authority of a court warrant.

He told The Independent: “As a raw idea it is awful. However it is a question of degrees and how it is developed. Searches should be made on a case-by-case basis with appropriate reviewing measures so that they can’t be done willy-nilly by government.”

Under the proposal, internet service providers and telecoms companies would hand over millions of phone and internet records to the Home Office, which would store them for at least 12 months so that the police and security services could access them. It is understood that more than £1bn has been earmarked for the database.

Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner, has described the plans as “a step too far for the British way of life”. Yesterday his office added: “It is clear that more needs to be done to protect people’s personal information, but creating big databases… means you can never eliminate the risk that the data will fall into the wrong hands.”

Shami Chakrabarti, director of the human rights group Liberty, said: “This is another example of the Government’s obsession with gathering as much information on each of us as possible in case it might prove useful in the future. Like the discredited ID card scheme this will have a massive impact on our privacy but will do nothing to make us safer.”

Lord Carlile acknowledged the value of using phone and internet intelligence in fighting crime, but he said it would be wrong to go as far as the US Patriot Acts. “[They] go much further so that they [US data searches] include everyone who has made contact with a terror suspect… There must be codes of practice… In counter-terrorism collation is everything but raw data only has a limited use.”

Dominic Grieve, the Shadow Home Secretary, said: “The Government must justify the case for any such massive increase in state acquisition, sharing and retention of data, spell out the safeguards to prevent abuse and – given its appalling record – explain how it will protect the integrity of any database holding sensitive personal data.”

Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said: “Ministers simply can’t be trusted with confidential data of this sort, as it has shown again and again.”

Plans for the giant database were first announced by the Prime Minister in February under the unprepossessing title of the Intercept Modernisation Programme. It is not clear where the database will be held but GCHQ, the government eavesdropping centre, may eventually be the home for the project.

The proposal emerged as part of plans to implement an EU directive developed after the 7 July bombings to bring uniformity to record-keeping. Since last October telecoms companies have been required to keep records of phone calls and text messages for 12 months. That requirement is to be extended to internet, email and voice-over-internet use and included in a Communications Data Bill.

* Lord West of Spithead, the Counter-terrorism minister, last night said “another great plot” was being investigated by police and security services.

How the Government wants to watch over us

What is the Communications Data Bill?

It will allow the authorities to collect and retain details of every phone number we have called or texted, as well as every address to which we have sent emails and internet site we have accessed. The Government is preparing to announce its inclusion in the Queen’s Speech legislative programme to be set out on 3 December.

What happens at the moment?

Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), some 650 public bodies – including police and local authorities – can require internet service providers or mobile-phone companies to hand over details of their customers’ phone, email and internet habits. About 500,000 requests were made last year. The rules say public bodies can only access records if it is for a legitimate purpose and proportionate – criteria which critics complain are too vague. Under a voluntary agreement, the internet service providers and phone companies store such records for a year. But they have protested about the huge pressure they are under to store such vast amounts of material.

How does the Bill change this?

It puts the retention of data on a statutory – rather than voluntary – basis and, crucially, paves the way for the information being transferred to a giant government database. The Bill also turns into British law an EU directive requiring companies to keep communications data for up to two years.

How do ministers justify the plans?

They say police and security services need more up-to-date tools in tackling terrorist and criminal conspiracies that are more international in nature and rely on high-tech communications. It is in the security services’ interests to have a single point of access to track phone and internet records of suspects. It is harder to trace links between conspirators whose records are held by different companies.

Would contents of emails and phone calls be included?

No. Investigators can only intercept emails and tap phones under warrants approved by the Home Secretary. The aim is to monitor patterns of behaviour and establish links between conspirators.

What information might they recover?

Police or the security services could establish when a call was made and its length, as well as the number that was dialed. It is thought information could also be gathered as to the location of a mobile phone when a call was made. Information could be retrieved about when emails were sent and who the recipient was, as well as a full picture of internet sites visited.

How would access to such a database be governed?

The details are likely to be spelt out later this year by the Home Secretary. The Government promises there will be “strict safeguards” to “strike the proper balance between privacy and protecting the public”. The likelihood is that the RIPA rules requiring requests for information to be approved by senior officers within public bodies will continue to apply.

How much electronic communication is there?

About one trillion emails and more than 60 billion text messages will be sent in Britain this year. Most homes and offices now have a computer; there are an estimated 20 million broadband connections.

How does this information help solve crime?

Email and telephone data has proved vital in the fight against al-Qa’ida. Mobile-phone location data was used in January in the conviction of Colm Murphy for his part in the Omagh bombing. Telephone records helped to send the serial killer Harold Shipman to jail.

Source

Well there is insanity and then there is insanity. How bloody American.

Are all countires foolish enough to follow the American Fear Mongering upon their citizens?

I sure hope not.

Elements of Fascism include:

* Powerful idea of nationalism
* Powerful executive control in government
* Lower human rights outlook
* Military reigns supreme
* Corporations wield great power
* Idea that National Security is at great risk to some threat
* Identifying of enemies/scapegoats that unifies citizens in Patriotism
* Mass media controlled by State and Corporations
* Fixed elections
* Rampant corruption
* Unlimited power held by police force

Fascism Anyone?

Fascism’s principles are wafting in the air today, surreptitiously masquerading as something else, challenging everything we stand for.

By Laurence W. Britt

The cliché that people and nations learn from history is not only overused, but also overestimated; often we fail to learn from history, or draw the wrong conclusions. Sadly, historical amnesia is the norm.

We are two-and-a-half generations removed from the horrors of Nazi Germany, although constant reminders jog the consciousness. German and Italian fascism form the historical models that define this twisted political worldview. Although they no longer exist, this worldview and the characteristics of these models have been imitated by protofascist1 regimes at various times in the twentieth century. Both the original German and Italian models and the later protofascist regimes show remarkably similar characteristics. Although many scholars question any direct connection among these regimes, few can dispute their visual similarities.

Beyond the visual, even a cursory study of these fascist and protofascist regimes reveals the absolutely striking convergence of their modus operandi. This, of course, is not a revelation to the informed political observer, but it is sometimes useful in the interests of perspective to restate obvious facts and in so doing shed needed light on current circumstances.

For the purpose of this perspective, I will consider the following regimes: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s Indonesia. To be sure, they constitute a mixed bag of national identities, cultures, developmental levels, and history. But they all followed the fascist or protofascist model in obtaining, expanding, and maintaining power. Further, all these regimes have been overthrown, so a more or less complete picture of their basic characteristics and abuses is possible.

Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power. These basic characteristics are more prevalent and intense in some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level of similarity.

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent  displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was  usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on  xenophobia.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a  means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame forfailures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional  national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and“terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even  when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were  under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass  media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating an disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not.

And then there is this little problem

MOD computer missing or could have been stolen, considering 658 have been stolen over the past 4 years.

October 13 2008

A missing Ministry of Defence computer hard drive may contain personal details of as many as 1.7 million people who have inquired about joining the armed forces, it was revealed today.

Opposition parties warned that the information contained on the drive represented “a potential goldmine for organised crime” and could even compromise national security.

When the loss of the disc from the premises of contractor EDS in Hook, Hampshire, was first announced last week, it was thought that it carried the names, addresses, passport numbers, dates of birth, next-of-kin and driving licence details of up to 100,000 Army, Navy and RAF personnel.

But armed forces minister Bob Ainsworth today announced that further investigations had revealed it contained data relating to large numbers of people who asked for information about careers in the forces.

In a written statement to Parliament, he said: “Whilst conducting an audit of storage media, EDS found that it could not find a removable hard disc drive. Under the terms of its contract EDS is required to protect all personal information in its care.

“The hard drive had been used with the TAFMIS recruitment system and may, in the worst case, contain details relating to 1.7 million individuals who have enquired about joining the Armed Forces.”

Where people simply made casual inquiries, only their name and contact numbers are likely to have been recorded, said Mr Ainsworth.

But for those who went on to apply to join up, the drive could include more extensive data, including next of kin details, passport and National Insurance numbers, drivers’ licence and bank details and NHS numbers.

It was unlikely that the details on the hard drive were encrypted for security.

The minister said that the incident “illustrates the need continually to review and enhance our arrangements for personal data”.

An investigation has been launched by the MoD Police and a helpline has been set up for those who may have been affected, said Mr Ainsworth.

Where bank account details are involved, banks have been informed through the Apacs system of the need for scrutiny against unauthorised access.

And he added: “The MoD is clear about the crucial need to implement wholesale improvements in how we store, protect and manage the use of personal data.

“We are also clear that we need to effect a significant behavioural change among our people at all levels. We are currently engaged in a comprehensive programme to do all of this.

“The MoD is a large department operating many complex data systems world-wide, often at very short notice and under extreme conditions. This presents additional challenges and risks in the implementation of rapid change.

“However we are determined to ensure that we effect that change.”

Liberal Democrat defence spokesman Nick Harvey said: “This data loss is an absolute scandal and on a far larger scale than previously feared. It is shameful that the minister made the admission in writing and not in person to the House of Commons.

“This information is a potential goldmine for organised crime and could even compromise national security.

“In the past soldiers have been targeted by extremists. One dreads to think what might happen if this information were to fall into the wrong hands.

“It is yet another unwelcome burden for our servicemen and women to worry about, at a time when they are already under great pressure because of overstretch.

“It beggars belief that the Government cannot competently manage such a basic task. There must be an urgent inquiry into how this happened.”

EDS informed the MoD on October 8 that it had discovered the hard drive was missing during an audit conducted to comply with a data handling review ordered by the Cabinet Office.

It was only the latest information security breach to hit the MoD in recent years.

In July the Ministry admitted 658 of its laptops had been stolen over the past four years and 26 portable memory sticks containing classified information had been either stolen or misplaced since January.

Source