Moving towards a more authoritarian society?

Lex_Diamonds

What do you all think? Can we look forward to a future where Coke runs Europe and we get frog-marched around the streets unable to think for ourselves?

Maybe im just paranaoid but it seems our civil rights are slowly being eroded.

JustHalf

I love it when the line "only the guilty have need to fear of this" being used to justify anything which intrudes on civil liberties. For example, with the UK's DNA database, if you are suspected of a crime and your DNA is taken; then ruled out of suspicion, a record of your DNA is still retained. Even if the crime you were suspected of has had a conviction (not you), your DNA is STILL retained to be matched with any new DNA that comes along in a crime.

If the innocent have nothing to fear, why treat the innocent as criminals?

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Lex_Diamonds:
What do you all think? Can we look forward to a future where Coke runs Europe and we get frog-marched around the streets unable to think for ourselves?

Maybe im just paranaoid but it seems our civil rights are slowly being eroded.

</font>

Coke's a consumer product- you don't like it, you don't have to buy it. The idea of corporations "running the planet" often leaves me rolling around laughing. Several folks have proposed to me on the streets (while innocently gathering people for their cause) that Coca Cola will indeed rule all our lives one day.

Need I say- get a grip? It's a soft drink- hardly an essential product for human survival- the element of choice is retained by the consumer. A few decades ago, I would have agreed with you- but these days? Consumer rights are being supported staunchly from many different corners.

<sarcasm>
And which company will it be next? Nike? Dear god, what would we *do* without those sports sneakers! Or what about those big evil pharmaceutical companies refusing to sell their drugs to the third world at a huge loss? Will they run us someday too?
</sarcasm>

As far as records being kept of you go- I don't mind if my DNA's on file. In fact, I'd gladly give up my (legally nonexistent) right to records privacy upon suspicion- as long as it improves the arrest record. If it didn't work, then scrap it- it costs money.

2nd Retrials for the same offense<<---ONLY for murder, and if new evidence is presented at a pretrial hearing to persuade a sitting high court judge to reopen the case. For crying out loud- if damning evidence presents itself after an acquittal or vice versa- do we deny the wronged parties involved a retrial? Now *that* would take away their rights.

As far as the right to silence goes- that's only true in criminal proceedings. And if a matter of tort is privately broached to the sitting judge in his chambers, the right is returned. Seems fair enough to me- if you're unwilling to come forward with information regarding a crime you are suspected in, then there is circumstantial evidence enough anyway to convict you of conspiracy to commit!

The point about the actual right being "taken away" is often brought up by dreadlocked protesters who don't understand how judicial review works and haven't the faintest clue about how laws are applied in the courts. If the litigants are at an impasse in a criminal proceeding due to the witholding of vital information, a jury system would be swayed to convict, and a trial judge wouldn't need a second invitation to mark down a sentence.

And if new evidence presents itself, then the case can be reopened if it's a homicide case. I can see these laws reversing miscarriages of justice, not perpetuating them.

So, at the end of the day, when legislators draft a competent bill, and it's voted through on the back of a democratic majority in a cameral system- they can't expect thanks. Oh no. Or even a chance for the law to test itself. And for what? Because we're frightened to death of losing the smallest of freedoms.

Occy

bonkey

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus:
<sarcasm>
And which company will it be next? Nike? Dear god, what would we *do* without those sports sneakers! </sarcasm>

The discussion about the power groups such as Nike have was dealt with superbly in No Logo. While I do not agree with the author in all respects, she raised a very valid point about people like Nike "sponsoring" inner-city basketball courts, and investing heavily in malls to replace the town sqaure. Some companies (Disney for example) have gone so far as to build their own towns.

Why is this a bad thing? Because whenever there is a protest of any description, the public have lost the right to assemble in a public place, due to the lack of public places.

The high street is public, but the mall is not.

I'm not worried about Nike taking over the world, but if enough of the megacorps follow their lead (which they have been doing in many respects) then they will slowly eke out a larger foothold in what we perceive as public life...and ultimately they will have some strong hold on it.

However, before this goes to the "goosestepping to the Nike beat" limits, I firmly believe that society will wake up and cop itself on a bit.

As far as records being kept of you go- I don't mind if my DNA's on file. In fact, I'd gladly give up my (legally nonexistent) right to records privacy upon suspicion- as long as it improves the arrest record. If it didn't work, then scrap it- it costs money.
</font>

I agree 100%. On issues like this, one must question the benefit of privacy.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
As far as the right to silence goes- that's only true in criminal proceedings.
</font>

The new RIP bill actually changes that. refusing to hand over encryption keys to the government (arguably a right to silence) is a punishable crime. In fact, you have to prove that you no longer have the material in question or the key in order to be able to refuse its handing over.

Basically, the bill has made availing of the right to silence a criminal offence.

The breadth of the bill actually means that I could send an anonymous letter to your local pc plod telling him that you had child pr0n on your pc in a file named MySeekritProject.asc. While it is unlikely to happen, this is all he needs to act on the information, and you can then be mandated to hand that file, and its decryption keys over to the police in order to prove your innocence.

You have thus been branded guilty till proven innocent, and not only that, but exercising your right to silence is further compounding your guilt.

Now....dont get me wrong...

I side with Occy's read on this more than on what I believe Manach was driving at. RIP is (IMHO) a travesty waiting to happen, but it was drafted with different intentions.

Poorly drafted laws have a way of sorting themselves out over time, which is what I will hope happens here. It is not a secretive attempt to get at all our data - it is people trying to draft sensible laws without really understanding the implications of technology today.

Crypto frightens the hell out of organised government. For possibly the first time ever, it is likely that the criminals can "openly" communicate with litle fear of interception. Understandably, some of the reactions to this are somewhat draconian.

jc

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Apologies Monarch&Bonkey- I had no idea that we were discussing an Irish law- I thought the post was driving at the Human Rights act re: ECHR which mandates self-incrimination in criminal proceedings. As far as having to prove one's innocence by handing over incriminating material...that has disaster written all over it. However, that is what judicial review is for- to ensure that the spirit, rather than the letter of the law is applied.

A sitting trial judge with years of experience is blatantly going to recognize the abominably low standard of proof required to convict on the facts of a case, and so will impose "hidden conditions". Eg- declare computer data confiscation to be an act of state duress, illegal under most governments' constitutions. Or simply to declare such data subjudice or inadmissible.

In any case, if the letter of the law states those conditions, it's only a matter of time before that changes. As far as self-incrimination in criminal proceedings given circumstantial submission by a prosecuting counsel- I see no problem with that being enforced, as previously stated.

The right to silence was in effect meant as a vehicle to prohibit an issue of tort from coloring the proceedings. As such, moaning about when it is selectively deprived to, and I quote those under reasonable and judicious suspicion, is entirely unjustified imo.

Occy

Lex_Diamonds

When I used the company Coca Cola as an example I was simply doing so as a form of hyperbole to get the point of a corporate run dystopia across more effectively

I know they would never run things, however, other corporations already run things from behind the scenes and they also are involved in the deaths of individuals in countries where the rights of the individual are less stringently upheld.

JustHalf

Personally, I would have a problem with my DNA being retained after being acquitted.

Is the record of DNA a sample or a record of a sample? Bob, you might be able to answer this... if it is a record, I'd be annoyed; but if it was a sample I would be angry. I would still consider it my property, that should be returned to me on acquital.

Mmh. I better start quizzing some of my ex-statistics lecturers. Let's ignore this article's bias; but the point of false positives is interesting. Unfortunately, they fail to mention the method (or most figures) used to derive their results.
http://www.libertysearch.com/articles/2000/000008.html

Also, current developments in UK law are becoming quite unsettling. In one case, the lawmakers wrote up a law whos intent was to bring about the licencing of physical security. Unfortunately, the wording of this law included computer security personnel. When this was raised, the reply was of the lines "no, that's not what is intended by the law"... they did not, however, alter the law. Even by adding in the word "physical".

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/18723.html

The second will be posted when I have time!

Manach

<irony>
Nonsense, for example the recent changes to law in the UK;
- restricting right to silence,
- 2nd retrials for the same offence,
- moves to make DNA databases permanent & mandatory
are for the public good and only crooks need fear these innovations.
</irony>

TheAuditor

Lads, don't you think you're all just being a little paranoid?