Category Archives: Current Affairs

Do we need credit card companies & banks to be our moral compass?

Posted by David Hurst on December 9, 2010 1 comments

A few days ago I felt compelled to write a little about the Wikileaks debacle (Wikileaks “cablegate” – fallout from the release of classified US Embassy cables) principally because I’m disgusted at the way various companies have suddenly decided to withdraw services from Wikileaks. This frankly smacked of coercion by the US government – something which they denied. Except of course, this it yet another lie as it has since emerged that the US government did in fact request Paypal to stop providing services, since they deemed Wikileaks’ activity to be illegal in the US. The country that prides itself on its values for individual freedoms, is in fact trying to stymie free speech.

Since my last post, a Swiss bank has frozen bank accounts belonging to Mr Assange. The Swiss? Surely they are the world leaders in confidentiality and discreet banking? Not any more it would seem. Presumably the US has been sticking its nose in there too.

Then of course Visa and Mastercard decide they can no longer process donation payments for Wikileaks – a journalistic publisher. They are still perfectly happy for you to use your credit card to buy all manner of pornography, violent movies, and even guns. You can gamble yourself into unmanageable debt with your credit card – that’s fine. Just don’t think about making a donation to Wikileaks. These companies are hardly qualified to become some sort of global moral compass, and there’s no reason why they should try to be such, unless of course the US government is once again pulling strings behind the scenes like a petulant child.

I don’t agree with what Wikileaks has done in publishing classified information without properly redacting names of people, who may now be in danger as a result. I think Julian Assange is hugely foolish if he thought there would be no backlash from all this. But… everyone has a right to speak their mind, and the Internet is the ideal place to do it. Any effort to stifle free speech on the Internet is an attack on the freedoms of every citizen in the world. It seems odd that this should come from a country that sends its armies around the world to bully other countries into adopting “democracy” and “freedom”.

I always knew the world, and especially its governments, were completely corrupt, but I didn’t expect business leaders in the online world to capitulate so completely, so quickly.

What do they all hope to achieve anyway? There are more than 500 mirrors of Wikileaks, and that number is growing daily. People will still get this information, and if someone wants to donate to Wikileaks, they will find a way. It won’t be long before groups emerge that accept donations on behalf of Wikileaks.

Yesterday, a group of activists that are pro-Wikileaks, initiated a DoS attack on Mastercard and killed SecureCode processing, causing annoyance and frustration for anyone trying to shop online with their MasterCard. I certainly don’t endorse such criminal behaviour, but if a company like MasterCard takes a ludicrous and unfair stance such as they have, they have to expect recriminations.

And every one of us should be in fear of our civil liberties. These sort of actions set dangerous precedents. If I write something on my blog that someone else takes a dislike to, do they then have the right to coerce other organisations to stop supplying me? Will my bank accounts be frozen? Probably not, because I don’t publish classified secrets on my blog, but the principle is worthy of thought all the same. Regardless of what anybody thinks about Wikileaks, the simple fact is that they did not steal this information. They have simply published information that was given them. This may be irresponsible, but the same accusation could be levelled at the vast majority of the world’s press, and I don’t see their editors being arrested on trumped up charges, or having their assets frozen.

Wikileaks “cablegate” – fallout from the release of classified US Embassy cables

Posted by David Hurst on December 6, 2010 1 comments

I’ve been watching the Wikileaks scandal of late with some interest. For those who have had their heads in the sand, Wikileaks is a website that is in the process of publishing more than a quarter of a million classified US Embassy cables. Its founder Julian Assange, is currently in hiding (thought to be in the UK), and numerous prominent US officials are rushing to denounce the Wikileaks activity as “illegal” and insisting Mr Assange should be tried as a “traitor”.

Mr Assange is not a US citizen and Wikileaks is not a US corporation. Neither was Mr Assange or Wikileaks responsible for stealing the classified cables – they received the cables and decided to publish them, much like the press publish information from confidential sources. I don’t really see how US law applies here, though I have no doubts that the US will be pulling every string it possibly can to bring about the demise of Julian Assange and Wikileaks. Perhaps the US should instead focus its attentions on dealing with the US citizen(s) that stole the stuff in the first place, or maybe look at its security policies for sending such confidential missives.

From Mr Assange’s point of view, he may well believe he’s doing the world a great favour, but he must surely realise the foolishness of his actions. I mean really, is anyone actually surprised that the US slags off anyone and everyone behind the scenes, whilst maintaining a facade of “international friendship”? I imagine every country in the world has similar skeletons in their closet. Presumably, Mr Assange will be in fear for his life henceforth, and will have to stay in hiding.

What interests me about all this is not the political aspects – I already know that all politicians and governments are liars, and frankly any that believe otherwise are just fooling themselves – rather, what interests me is the speed with which some big gutless organisations have moved to take a stance against Wikileaks.

Firstly, Amazon decided to cancel hosting for Wikileaks, citing some feeble contravention of terms of service. (What happened to free speech?) Then Paypal followed suit, suspending the Wikileaks donation account (and no doubt pocketing any money that was sitting in it at the time). Both were perfectly happy to work with Wikileaks previously, despite the fact that Wikileaks has always been in the business of publishing information that would otherwise remain secret. Presumably, there are powers at work behind the scenes. Maybe these same powers are the ones responsible for the sustained Denial of Service attacks on the Wikileaks website – attacks which indiscriminately penalised EveryDNS, who were providing DNS services for the domain, and by extension its 500,000 other customers. Understandably, EveryDNS had to suspend service also.

Never fear, for the perpetually neutral Swiss shall come to the rescue. Wikileaks is back online at wikileaks.ch.

The information is already out there. Trying Julian Assange or Wikileaks for some perceived criminal activity will not stem the tide of information. Nor will quietly garrotting Mr Assange whilst he sleeps, or pressuring the Swedish government to pursue some trumped up sex crime charges against Mr Assange. The information is out there, and will have been copied all over the world as soon as it was published.

That’s the joy of the Internet folks. If you don’t want a secret to be found it, don’t write it down, and never put it anywhere on the Internet.

The Stig – the (not so) great unveiling

Posted by David Hurst on September 2, 2010 None comments

I enjoy watching Top Gear. Not as much as I used to true, but that has more to do with the retarded pre-pubescent humour than Mr Stig being unveiled. Frankly, the news coverage of this underwhelming event has been way too excessive. I mean, come on… we all knew that there was a guy under the helmet, and many would have had a reasonable stab at guessing his identity. Clearly, it had to be someone with racing experience (and probably not a huge amount of success if he has time to show up at the Top Gear test track throughout the year), so finding out that it is former Formula 3 driver and movie stuntman Ben Collins is hardly a shock.

Nor is it a shock that the BBC should have sought an injunction to prevent the disclosure of Stig’s identity. “The Stig” is not the same as Ben Collins the man. Rather, “The Stig” is a character and the intellectual property of the BBC (and its license payers), and Mr Collins presumably agreed to play along with the secrecy element of the character. The BBC should not be prevented from protecting its assets, provided such preventative action is sensibly priced and with good cause, simply because it is license payer funded.

All that said, I don’t really think this is as much of a disaster as Top Gear’s Andy Wilman asserted in his recent blog post. As he put it himself:

“Everyone who’s ever worked on Top Gear has kept the Stig thing a secret, and the person who wears the suit has signed confidentiality agreements to do the same. So talk about what you like in your own life, but not the bit you agreed not to. Your word is supposed to mean something.”

So where exactly is the problem? Mr Collins has surely breached contract, therefore the contract is at an end. It is time for white suited Stig to be shot off the end of an aircraft carrier in a knackered old Jag, and for a new Stig to arrive in a new colour suit (red or silver maybe?). The Top Gear viewers will love it! In fact, Ben Collins has just written half an episode of the new series for you, and generated huge amounts of publicity for the show.

Really, whilst it must be hugely irritating for the TG team, everybody wins. Ben and his publishers HarperCollins may well be cashing in the BBC’s IP, but the BBC has the opportunity to re-invigorate the show with a new Stig and move on… until the new Stig decides to publish his memoirs that is.

Now, regarding the new Stig – my suggestion would have to be Valentino Rossi, if you can tempt him away from Ducati and stop him doodling on the helmet of course…

UK Government asks Facebook to remove sympathy group for Raoul Moat

Posted by David Hurst on July 14, 2010 None comments

Unless you’ve been living in a vacuum, you’ll probably have seen Raoul Moat’s exploits being mercilessly devoured by the British media. The former bouncer got out of prison after serving a short sentence for assault and promptly went after his ex-girlfriend, who had told him she didn’t want to continue their relationship and that she was now seeing a police officer. The following day, staff at the prison called the police and warned them that his girlfriend, Samantha Stobbart, was at serious risk of being assaulted by Mr Moat. The police did their usual excellent job, and shortly after Raoul Moat did indeed assault Miss Stobbart… with a gun. He shot her twice in the stomach through the living room window of her parent’s home.

Sadly Chris Brown, her boyfriend (of just one week), ran out of the house armed with an iron bar, and Raoul Moat shot him dead. There’s probably more to this than has been reported in the media – I can’t imagine anyone being foolish enough to take on an angry gunman with just a metal bar for protection.

Then the following day, Raoul shot police officer David Rathband through the window of his vehicle whilst he was on duty, after calling the police to tell them that they weren’t taking him seriously enough. Shooting a police officer certainly got their attention if the previous murder hadn’t, and there ensued an enormous man hunt at a cost of many millions of pounds to the UK tax payer.

Raoul Moat was finally tracked down on the 9 July, where a long stand off with the police resulted in Raoul being tasered (electrocuted with a stun gun) at least twice, before he finally “shot himself” in the early hours of the 10 July. At least, that’s what the police tell us and we’ll probably never know if that’s completely true or not. Interestingly, the taser guns used had yet to be approved by the Home Office.

I can’t envisage any scenario where tasering a man who is holding a gun to his neck could ever be considered a good idea. Electric shocks cause involuntary muscle contractions – not ideal if the person receiving the shock has their finger poised on the trigger of a firearm. In any case, how did they manage to taser him twice without actually managing to subdue and take him into custody? Why not use a tranquiliser dart instead?

It seems like extraordinarily harsh treatment of a man who clearly had severe mental instabilities, that would only ever have had one outcome. Some people are upset at the way this has been handled and as a result a Facebook group in sympathy of Raoul Moat has emerged, which David Cameron has rushed to denounce and is seeking to have Facebook remove the group. He may well have been getting all chummy with Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook founder – report here) recently, but I think he’s barking up the wrong tree here. Facebook is hardly about to start censoring its users’ activities – not unless they are in breach of Facebook’s terms at least.

In fact, it’s pretty outrageous that Mr Cameron or anyone in the UK Government should be seeking to stifle free speech in that way. Raoul Moat is certainly not a “legend” (as described on said Facebook group) and he may well have been a “callous murderer” (as Cameron put it), but I think some of the sympathy being shown is not necessarily for the actions of the man, but the way he came to a miserable end that might well have been avoided. The more sensationalist comments are no doubt posted by people who are simply hoping to provoke a reaction. Regardless, free speech and free thought are essential foundations of civilisation. We are not robots. We are not all the same. Some people say things that we find vulgar, offensive and distasteful, and we must let them say what they will because that is their right. Allowing them to say their piece, however unpleasant, is not the same as condoning or supporting their beliefs. The UK Government has no right whatsoever to police the Internet or freedom of speech – though of course they keep on trying.

In any case, much sympathy must go to Mr Moat’s family (who are completely innocent sufferers), to the family of Chris Brown and to Samantha Stobbart and Pc David Rathband as they start on the slow road to recovery.

Perhaps in future, the police might take more notice of proffered advice from their colleagues in the prison service.

Plastic bags – the greatest evil the environment has ever known? Or, just a bag?

Posted by David Hurst on April 28, 2010 2 comments

Shopping has changed. No more do courteous sales assistants ask you if you would like a bag. You are either expected to remember to bring your own, or buy a “bag for life”. Enter the acute discomfort of asking for a bag, only to be met with a frown from the eco-sensitive sales assistant, or an additional charge.

This is all part of some mandate from on high that shops cease to provide plastic bags. As per usual, no sensible thought or recourse to proven science has been applied before shovelling out the legislation. Indeed, most of the data and statistics that exist regarding plastic bags and their damage to wildlife, ecology and marine habitats, are widely inaccurate or mis-reported.

The reality is that plastic companies had produced both bio-degradeable (degrades in the ground) and oxo-degradeable (degrades in the air) plastic bags long before this nonsense was introduced. Taking Tesco as an example, their plastic carrier bag will start to degrade after about 18 months and will be completely degraded in 2 years. I can confirm that this is 100% accurate. I have an old Tesco carrier bag in my garage that is starting to degrade and it literally disintegrates if you touch it. If one of these bags finds its way into the environment, it will degrade. This has significant benefits in particular for marine mammals. Fair enough, the oxo-degradeable bags won’t degrade in landfill, but that’s not really the point.

On the other hand, the big plastic/vinyl bag for life carrier bags are neither bio-degradeable or oxo-degradeable.

Sometimes I remember to take bags with me when I go shopping. Certainly, when we do our major household shopping each month, we take our own bags. But if you’re out and about and need to buy a few items for lunch, you may well be in need of a bag, and you shouldn’t be forced to pay for one, or be treated like an eco-villain for taking a fresh one.

These new degradeable plastics use very little energy to produce, when compared to the bags with the supposed longer life. They are made from a by-product of oil refinement that would be otherwise burnt off. They are easily recyclable, completely re-usable, not to mention lightweight and strong. If we all used plastic bags, and recycled them properly, this would be an ecologically sound proposition.

The problem is human laziness and the propensity of the powers-that-be to deliver over-the-top legislation that simply bludgeons the problem and only turns it into a slightly different problem. It’s nothing more than an over-reaction to inaccurate data, rather than a well thought out and scientifically relevant policy. I will continue to use, re-use and recycle my plastic bags, thanks very much.

The Digital Economy Bill – now law

Posted by David Hurst on April 13, 2010 1 comments

I along with many thousands of my fellow citizens registered my objection to the Digital Economy Bill with my local MP. Specifically, I was extremely concerned that this bill would be rushed through during the wash-up period – where outstanding legislation is passed into law prior to a general election – without a proper debate and consultation. I raised my valid concerns with David Laws MP, and received a 3 page letter back from him. You could be forgiven for thinking that he actually gave my objection serious consideration, but alas the letter was clearly a standard response to this issue, and frankly it was poorly put together. It seemed to focus its message on music and video piracy, and appeared to me to be written to perpetrators of such theft. I object to being lumped in with this bunch – I buy all my music, video and software legally.

The part of the bill which bothers is me is that Internet users accused of copyright theft (note “accused” not “convicted”) can have their connection de-activated. This is not a step forwards at all. It is loosely aimed at preventing file sharers from sharing illegal content, but it will not prevent it from happening at all. What will actually happen is that innocent Internet users will be targeted by criminals in much the same way that senders of spam operate. Computers will be hijacked by a virus and become part of a botnet controlled by the criminals. The unsuspecting user will then begin hosting illegal files without any knowledge of it happening, and end up having their Internet access removed.

Another problem is insecure WiFi networks, and there are still loads of these around. The hacker can sit in a car outside your house, hop on to your WiFi and download whatever they want, in your name.

The bill is cobbled together and has no protection for innocent users. It has been rushed through without due democratic process. It’s the same with all of these things: the Government proposes some piece of legislation; the people object; the Government does it anyway.

The Internet and the World Wide Web has been built by the people of this planet, for the people of this planet. It owes its life to numerous clever programmers who have devoted their time, often free of charge, to making it better for everyone. For the UK Government to suddenly decide they have the right to govern the Internet in the UK, is just as disturbing as the Chinese Government’s approach to controlling Internet use.

I don’t know how to stop copyright theft, but the kind of ill-considered approach set out in the Digital Economy Bill is not the answer.

The Digital Economy Bill is, in my opinion, nothing more than a sinister attempt to start monitoring and policing our Internet use without due cause. As per usual, the people that get burned as a result won’t be the actual criminals at all. Piracy and copyright theft will not disappear. The people that want to do this stuff will just invent new cleverer ways to circumvent the authorities and the real problems will remain unaddressed.

A sad day for the Internet.

BA Cabin Crew to lose cheap travel perks

Posted by David Hurst on March 24, 2010 1 comments

According to the BBC News website, British Airways has confirmed that cabin crew that took part in the Unite union’s 3 day strike action will lose their travel perks permanently. Currently, BA staff are given free or heavily discounted flights as a “non-contractural perk”, however all the cabin crew were advised before the strike action that if they took part, they would forfeit their travel perks.

The union has obviously immediately cried foul and is claiming that discounted travel is not just a perk but “custom and practice”. Well of course the union would say that.

The reality is that British Airways lost £401million in the 2009 financial year, and in the nine months to December 2009 in the current financial year, were already showing a loss of £342million. The three day action by strikers that’s just been completed is estimated to have cost BA £21million, and goodness only knows how much customer goodwill. If you book the holiday of a lifetime with British Airways and the flight gets cancelled, how likely are you to re-book with BA? Regardless, of the reason for the cancellation, I imagine not many people would trust the airline again. This situation will be made even worse with more proposed strike action this weekend.

Where does this get anybody? The cabin crew want more money, but BA doesn’t have any money to give them. All they are doing is running the business into the ground. Who benefits if British Airways goes bust? The cabin crew won’t get what they want – they won’t even have jobs at all. All the non-striking members of staff lose their jobs through no fault of their own. The nation loses an institution. The big cheeses at the top, have loads of cash in the bank and will simply move on to the next high paid job. The only people that get hurt are the workers themselves who are striking.

Should they lose their travel perks? Of course they should. They have a contract of employment, the terms of which they agreed to when they joined the company. If they refuse to come to work and are actively damaging their employer, why should the employer hand out perks? In my company there is no automatic entitlement to any kind of bonus or pay review. If the company has had a poor year and no money has been made, then there are no perks, bonuses or pay rises. That’s life. In that event we just have to each try harder to make the company a profitable enterprise the following year.

Why should there be rewards for failure?