http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07...vis_interview/
And an interesting record of New Labours record over our liberties http://www.liberty-human-rights.org....tion-audit.pdf
at the end of 2007, Privacy International’s latest assessment of surveillance worldwide places the UK firmly at the bottom of the class. 43 out of 47 countries worldwide: on a par with Singapore – and a whisker ahead of Russia, China and Malaysia. We are classed as an “endemic surveillance society”.
.
.
.
On CCTV: “The current approach is the worst of all worlds – intrusive, ineffective and expensive. This government spent half a billion pounds on CCTV – one camera for every fourteen citizens. Yet police say 80 per cent of CCTV footage is unusable in court.”
.
.
.
On CCTV: “The current approach is the worst of all worlds – intrusive, ineffective and expensive. This government spent half a billion pounds on CCTV – one camera for every fourteen citizens. Yet police say 80 per cent of CCTV footage is unusable in court.”
Part 1 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 (not yet in force) introduced the Serious
Crime Prevention Order (or ‘Gangster ASBO’), a new civil order which is a
kind of hybrid of ASBOs and control orders. Like its predecessors the SCPO
will function to bypass the criminal justice system.
· SCPOs can impose severe restrictions on individual rights and
freedoms, including restrictions on who a person can communicate
with and where a person can live, work or travel.
· SCPOs enable criminal sanctions to follow from an act which is not in
itself a crime.
· SCPOs may be imposed for up to five years and breaching the
conditions can result in up to five years’ imprisonment.
.
.
.
Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005
Received Royal Assent 11 March 2005
The Act introduced control orders as an alternative to detention without trial
under Part 4 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (ATCSA).
Control orders can place restrictions on liberty, including curfews, tagging,
and house arrest. The restrictions contained in control orders can last
indefinitely, as there is no requirement for them to be part of a criminal
process leading to a trial.
· Control orders, like detention without trial, deny people the right to a
fair trial and the presumption of innocence.
· They can be used as punishment in themselves without trial
(breaching Article 7 of the ECHR).
· The decision as to whether to make a control order is based on secret
intelligence so the subject cannot test the case against him in any
meaningful way.
.
.
.
Section 132 (in force 1 August 2005) criminalised unauthorised
demonstrations within an area up to a kilometre from Parliament Square (the
precise area is designated by statutory instrument). The only defence is that
the person believed that authorisation had been given. If a demonstration is
authorised it can be made subject to extremely wide restrictions. There can
be limitations on place, time, duration, size and noise.
· This allows any demonstration to effectively be neutered. The clause
was introduced in an attempt to stop the protest of Brian Haw, who
has held a four-year anti-war vigil in Parliament Square. The High
Court has ruled, however, that since his protest began before the Act
became law he did not need to seek authorisation and therefore his
protest may continue. All other demonstrations are caught by the Act.
.
.
.
Civil Contingencies Act 2004
Received Royal Assent 18 November 2004
Part 2, section 19 (in force 10 December 2004) defines an emergency as an
event or situation which threatens serious damage to human welfare or to the
environment in the United Kingdom or in a Part or region; or war, or
terrorism, which threatens serious damage to the security of the United
Kingdom.
· The event or situation itself need not be of any seriousness.
· A relatively innocuous event may be considered to have implications
of damage sufficient to trigger the emergency powers.
· The powers will almost certainly result in infringements on freedoms
that could not be justified if there were not an emergency.
· The trigger for using the powers should be set at a higher level.
At 19(2) the events which threaten human welfare include (f) disruption of a
system of communication, and (g) disruption of facilities for transport.
· This makes the definition of ‘emergency’ too broad, as it includes a
wide range of events that pose no risk to public safety, e.g. a
computer virus or a postal strike under (f) or a fuel strike or poor
weather condition under (g).
· If a serious disruption to a communication system or transport
facilities did threaten human welfare (e.g. a computer virus that
attacked the air traffic control network under (f) or an ambulance
workers strike under (g), this would fall within an event threatening loss
of human life (section 19(2)(a) or human injury (section 19(2)(b) or
disruption of services relating to health (section 19(2)(h)).
Under section 22(3)(i) (in force 10 December 2004) emergency regulations
may create an offence of failing to comply with a provision of the regulations;
failing to comply with a direction or order given or made under the
regulations; or obstructing a person in the performance of a function under or
by virtue of the regulations.
· Emergency regulations may be made very quickly and people may be
unaware of the content of regulations.
· A person can be convicted of a criminal offence even if they did not
know that they were acting in breach of regulations, or had a lawful
excuse for doing so.
Under section 22(3)(j) emergency regulations may disapply or modify an
enactment or a provision made under or by virtue of an enactment. There is
an exception to this at section 23(5) (in force 10 December 2004) so that
emergency regulations may not amend ‘this Part of this Act or the Human
Rights Act 1998’.
· Liberty is pleased that the Human Rights Act 1998 has been given
protection from the provisions of 22(3)(j).
Under section 22(3)(b) and (c) emergency regulations may provide for the
confiscation and destruction of property with or without compensation. This
is the only reference to compensation in the Act.
· Inadequate provision for compensation to be awarded through the
Act.
Crime Prevention Order (or ‘Gangster ASBO’), a new civil order which is a
kind of hybrid of ASBOs and control orders. Like its predecessors the SCPO
will function to bypass the criminal justice system.
· SCPOs can impose severe restrictions on individual rights and
freedoms, including restrictions on who a person can communicate
with and where a person can live, work or travel.
· SCPOs enable criminal sanctions to follow from an act which is not in
itself a crime.
· SCPOs may be imposed for up to five years and breaching the
conditions can result in up to five years’ imprisonment.
.
.
.
Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005
Received Royal Assent 11 March 2005
The Act introduced control orders as an alternative to detention without trial
under Part 4 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (ATCSA).
Control orders can place restrictions on liberty, including curfews, tagging,
and house arrest. The restrictions contained in control orders can last
indefinitely, as there is no requirement for them to be part of a criminal
process leading to a trial.
· Control orders, like detention without trial, deny people the right to a
fair trial and the presumption of innocence.
· They can be used as punishment in themselves without trial
(breaching Article 7 of the ECHR).
· The decision as to whether to make a control order is based on secret
intelligence so the subject cannot test the case against him in any
meaningful way.
.
.
.
Section 132 (in force 1 August 2005) criminalised unauthorised
demonstrations within an area up to a kilometre from Parliament Square (the
precise area is designated by statutory instrument). The only defence is that
the person believed that authorisation had been given. If a demonstration is
authorised it can be made subject to extremely wide restrictions. There can
be limitations on place, time, duration, size and noise.
· This allows any demonstration to effectively be neutered. The clause
was introduced in an attempt to stop the protest of Brian Haw, who
has held a four-year anti-war vigil in Parliament Square. The High
Court has ruled, however, that since his protest began before the Act
became law he did not need to seek authorisation and therefore his
protest may continue. All other demonstrations are caught by the Act.
.
.
.
Civil Contingencies Act 2004
Received Royal Assent 18 November 2004
Part 2, section 19 (in force 10 December 2004) defines an emergency as an
event or situation which threatens serious damage to human welfare or to the
environment in the United Kingdom or in a Part or region; or war, or
terrorism, which threatens serious damage to the security of the United
Kingdom.
· The event or situation itself need not be of any seriousness.
· A relatively innocuous event may be considered to have implications
of damage sufficient to trigger the emergency powers.
· The powers will almost certainly result in infringements on freedoms
that could not be justified if there were not an emergency.
· The trigger for using the powers should be set at a higher level.
At 19(2) the events which threaten human welfare include (f) disruption of a
system of communication, and (g) disruption of facilities for transport.
· This makes the definition of ‘emergency’ too broad, as it includes a
wide range of events that pose no risk to public safety, e.g. a
computer virus or a postal strike under (f) or a fuel strike or poor
weather condition under (g).
· If a serious disruption to a communication system or transport
facilities did threaten human welfare (e.g. a computer virus that
attacked the air traffic control network under (f) or an ambulance
workers strike under (g), this would fall within an event threatening loss
of human life (section 19(2)(a) or human injury (section 19(2)(b) or
disruption of services relating to health (section 19(2)(h)).
Under section 22(3)(i) (in force 10 December 2004) emergency regulations
may create an offence of failing to comply with a provision of the regulations;
failing to comply with a direction or order given or made under the
regulations; or obstructing a person in the performance of a function under or
by virtue of the regulations.
· Emergency regulations may be made very quickly and people may be
unaware of the content of regulations.
· A person can be convicted of a criminal offence even if they did not
know that they were acting in breach of regulations, or had a lawful
excuse for doing so.
Under section 22(3)(j) emergency regulations may disapply or modify an
enactment or a provision made under or by virtue of an enactment. There is
an exception to this at section 23(5) (in force 10 December 2004) so that
emergency regulations may not amend ‘this Part of this Act or the Human
Rights Act 1998’.
· Liberty is pleased that the Human Rights Act 1998 has been given
protection from the provisions of 22(3)(j).
Under section 22(3)(b) and (c) emergency regulations may provide for the
confiscation and destruction of property with or without compensation. This
is the only reference to compensation in the Act.
· Inadequate provision for compensation to be awarded through the
Act.
brainwashing
Comment