The Musings of Harry

Sometimes, it just feels like the world is drowning in stupid.

I doubt that one could find three other words that so provoke my ire as these*.

The assumption which is inherent in those that ascribe to this view is that our rights as citizens are accorded to us by the state, at its discretion. That in the absence of its approval, we have no rights. The appropriate situation is precisely the reverse.

Our responsibilities are not currency; they are not some instrument by which we prove to the state that we are deserving of liberty. Our rights, as citizens in a liberal democracy, are innate: it is our rights that are sacrosanct and is is the state’s responsibility to ensure that, in all of its actions, the sovereignty of the law-abiding individual is not compromised.

This is why ID cards are bad. Why must a citizen be forced to submit themselves to the State for interrogation in the absence of due cause?

This is why rampant deployment of CCTV is unacceptable. Why should the authorities be permitted to observe me, without my knowledge, and without any indication that I have committed some wrong?

This is why ANPR systems are bad. Why should the police maintain two years’ worth of data about my journeys by car, when I have committed no crime?

The individual has innate rights and adopted responsibilities; the state has adopted rights and innate responsibilities. Its rights exist only so long as its legitimacy is maintained, and its legitimacy depends on the consent of the individual: government, by the consent of the governed. Citizens cannot consent to be governed by a body which, at its discretion, gives them the right to make such consent in the first place. That is a nonsense.

Henry Porter made this point, among others, in his recent evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights last week. It’s a great essay, absolutely worth reading. Go!

*Ok: that’s not true. We could start with “Gillian McKeith Rules” and move swiftly on to “nothing to hide…”

Please commit some of the £780 million pre-tax profits you made this year to reducing ticket prices. You say that ticket prices are higher to pay for improvements to infrastructure: this would be fine if it were true. £780m profits and £286,000 in bonsus to your executives tell a different story. Don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining.

I’d like to think that my gentle chastisement will prompt Network Rail to immediately change their stripes: such should be the way of the world. It is, of course, fantasy. They have no competition and will therefore rampantly profiteer until it becomes so unpalatable that the Government steps in and slaps them on the wrists. Yes, it’s true: rail companies are bastards.

In other obvious news, girls don’t want to be fat, men are competetive, no one likes condoms and Facebook isn’t private. Go figure!

Section 1.6 of the Health Act 2006 requires that all smoke-free premises display signs prohibiting smoking, or face a fine.

This requirement seems rather tedious to me. I was walking down a London high street a few days ago, and almost every shop displayed the “No Smoking” sign which has become ubiquitous since the beginning of the month. After the third or fourth shop, I found myself thinking: “OK: I get the message…”

Failing to display No Smoking signs is now an offence, the fine for which is set by secondary legislation. The only statutory limit is that it may not exceed a level on the Standard Scale, so the fine could be as much as £5,000, should a Secretary of State so choose. It is currently set at level three (£1000), but even that seems onerous when you consider that these signs really serve no purpose whatsoever: surely only people living in caves are unaware of the smoking ban.

I initially thought that perhaps the signage requirements had a sunset clause, which would make some measure of sense, but it seems that they do not. Perhaps, in the fullness of time, they’ll just repeal it –or maybe it’ll stay in place until smoking has long since dropped from favour, thereby becoming an entertaining anachronism.

PS: on a slightly more pedantic note, it’s strange that the designer of the sign elected to put a full stop after “no smoking” (which doesn’t need one: it’s essentially a title) but not after the text explaining the penalty (which should have one: it’s a sentence).

Huzzah! It has arrived. No longer must I emerge from pubs in a haze of smoke, stinking to high heaven.  The malodorous emissions of cigars no longer assault my nostrils from across the room. No longer will my laundry be filled with clothes that are clean, but unwearable because of the reek.

I note with particular glee that smoking at bus stops also appears to be prohibited. I am a little suspicious of this — as I recall, the Act defines a substantially enclosed public space as having at least three walls and a roof, so I’m surprised that bus stops qualify. Nonetheless, people smoking at bus stops has always fucked me off, so never mind: I shall just be glad that they do…

Lots of people have been talking about Jade Goody and her posse of dim-witted sidekicks over the last few weeks. Harry comes a little late to the fray; he considered the whole thing to be utterly trivial and undeserving of his attention. Nonetheless, one thought has occured that is worth mentioning: the bullying (specifically, some stupid argument about food) was not particularly racist. It had racist suggestions, perhaps, but only if one went looking for them.

Really, Goody et al’s bullying was focussed on social differences (upbringing, class, etc) and not on racial ones. Goody made frequent references to slums and poverty in relation to her own past, and to wealth and privilege in relation to Shetty’s. Indeed, Goody clearly relished being loud and abusive, while Shetty was polite, calm and acted with good grace almost the whole time, which was telling.

Racial discrimination and its ilk are serious problems, and to call this petty nonsense racism is to dilute the meaning and impact of the word. We should call it what it is — bullying — and have a serious discussion about that, and its consequences and solutions, instead.

This has to be the most shocking suggestion yet to emerge from the Home Office. The Prime Minister’s working group on security, crime and justice has suggested, in a leaked memo, installing millimetre wave cameras — which can see through clothing — on lampposts, to spot “armed terrorists and other criminals”. It was announced some time ago that this technology is to be installed in some tube stations in an attempt to catch suicide bombers.

I’m almost lost for words. What is wrong with these people? What on earth makes them think that this is ethical? How can they possibly believe that such an egregious violation of perhaps the most basic form of privacy — clothing — is acceptable? I am angry that this possibility has even been suggested by someone in government. It betrays such a gross lack of respect for the basic, fundamental rights of people in modern society that it beggars belief that anyone could have suggested it in seriousness. It’s bad enough that it is being installed on tube stations, let alone being deployed ubiquitously.

What the fuck is wrong with these people?

After a long lapse, I thought I might dip my toe into the blogosphere for a moment to reveal a spontaneous thought.

While walking through sunny Brighton with my girlfriend today, it occurred that it’s safe to be indirectly disparaging about chavs, even when some are in earshot. This, obviously, is a glorious revelation. It holds because:

• Most chavs don’t think they are chavs, and thus will not be offended;
• Chavs who do know they’re chavs often seem to be proud of it. This superbia arises by some process of doublethink which I choose not to grapple.

Obviously you may encounter one of those self-hating chavs, in which case you may suddenly wish you’d used that dusty gym membership to prepare yourself for an injurious disagreement, but generally, I think it’ll work as a rule of thumb.

Talk past them and not to them, and you’ll be fine!

Bruce Schneier writes about an old story about a crazy Houston police chief who wants to put cameras in everyone’s homes. I read about this a while ago, but didn’t have a lot to say about it — it’s just stupid.

Bruce, however, raises a pertinent point…

One of the problems we have in the privacy community is that we don’t have a crisp answer to that question. Any suggestions?

…and he’s exactly right. This is a problem we’ve been grappling with in our local No2ID group for some time. The problem does not lie in refuting this point of view — that’s not too hard — but in finding a crisp way to do it. We need a soundbyte!

I’m not sure if I can satisfy that need, but I can certainly crib an argument from No2ID:

This needs restating to expose its true colours, thus: “So you are saying that if you are not a criminal then the government may use any surveillance and monitoring against you no matter how draconian and intrusive?

Another good argument can be extracted by applying some of Bruce’s own theory to the problem. One of the steps he prescribes as being essential to analysing a solution to a security problem is “What other risks does the solution generate?”. As one unfortunate Merseyside resident discovered, the spread of security cameras creates problems as well as solving them. The offenders in this case were apparently caught by “safeguards already in place”, but I am still given to wonder how much of this type of behaviour goes undiscovered.

Sed quis custodiet custodes ipsos?

The current flurry of stories about some cartoons depicting Mohammed has reminded me of something I should have blogged about ages ago:

“People do not have the right to not be offended.”

Certain people, mainly religious, seem to think that they have the right not to be offended. That their religion confers upon them some special protection to never be made the target of ridicule. These people don’t seem to understand that not everyone shares their views on the world. Mary Whitehouse, a particularly egregious advocate of enforced inoffensiveness, is one good example.

As much as I dislike religion, I do not have any problem with people with religious beliefs. What I do object to strongly is the self-righteous assertion of some religious people that their outlook on the world is the only right one, and that as such, it should be adopted by all people, regardless of their religious beliefs (or lack thereof).

Neil makes the good point that it’s not a good thing to wander around needlessly offending people, but I think that’s only half the issue. The real principle here is that offensiveness is so very subjective. People wandering around trying to offend others aren’t really the people of interest: it’s people who do legitimate things, like putting on plays, writing textbooks, and creating bad advertising.

If everyone constantly censored themselves to avoid possibly offending anyone anywhere, the world would be an unbearably tedious place. People should lighten up: especially evangelical zealots.