The Communications Data Bill Won’t Prevent Future Terrorism

In the wake of the Woolwich tragedy, in which a young soldier was brutally killed in broad daylight, it seems that it’s not just the English Defence League that are capitalising on the incident. In a more cynical, and certainly disgraceful fashion, our very own Home Secretary is now using the incident to rally support for her Communications Data Bill. Currently blocked by their Liberal Democrat coalition partners, May, alongside other Tory ministers, are now seeking a compromise with Labour in order to push what has been referred to as the “snooping charter” into law.

In this crude actualization of Naomi Klein’s “Shock Doctrine”, the aura of fear and panic rife throughout the country provides the perfect environment in which to resurrect the policy. If passed, the bill would provide unprecedented powers for the government, intelligence services and private companies to access citizen data, from private messages and e-mails, to the most intimate data on what sites you visit. The Home Office have justified this on two fronts- first, that terrorism is increasingly co-ordinated online. Second, that outsourcing some of this intelligence work to private security companies reduces the financial burden from the public coffers. Such as the dictum goes in Tory HQ, “We’re all in it together”. Seemingly, that also includes our assumed collective guilt and suspicion.

Those who support the bill argue that the act is simply extends existing laws. Already, telephone companies are obliged to hold records of our data for up to twelve months, so naturally as communication changes, so should security. Despite what I imagine are good intentions, these advocates are also horribly naïve.

For starters, unlike telephone services, the internet operates in complex networks that operate in multiple jurisdictions. We’ve seen the dark side to this, not least in the imprisonment of Talha Ashan, the British Muslim who was extradited to the US after allegedly having links to a website hosted by American servers. Yet in attempting to catch high level potential threats, this structure poses a difficulty, especially if highly organised groups can store information in jurisdictions beyond British or American reach- something that organisations like Wikileaks have used to their benefit. Even if one poses the counter argument that the bill will be able to catch more home grown terrorists, such as those who carried out the Woolwich murder, the point is still spurious. After all, intelligence services still have an unprecedented level of power over our internet activities,  and it is worth noting that both men were previously monitored by MI5.

Second, is the composition of the bill itself. Indeed, one of its notable characteristics is its attempt to distance from New Labour, by outsourcing responsibilities to collect and store on service providers, search engines and social media sites. Yet with easier access to this information as stipulated by the bill, that means that instead of simply finding out who you've been in contact with, both the government and private companies will have access to what you've searched online, how frequently you visit certain sites, and the type of content you consume. Effectively, this information would be used to construct images of us, and decide how likely we might be of committing a crime.

That’s all well and good in theory, but as anyone who uses social media services will tell you, there is a huge disparity between us as humans and our online avatars. So while safety might be assured if you spend most of your browsing time looking at LOLcats, that might not be true if you happen to be an activist for the Palestinian cause. If we consider the sheer difficulty of even defining what ‘creates’ terrorists, then it’s not impossible that many who will be at the receiving end of this bill might be detained under quite obscure circumstances. Not only does this waste police time- it also allows those who actually pose a threat to be less easily detected, especially if they make themselves less visible online.

Despite the prevailing narrative that the Woolwich attack was ‘caused’ by radicalization on the internet, passing the bill is unlikely to make the streets any safer. Instead, it is far more likely to limit freedom of expression and debate online, while simultaneously disregarding the ways that terrorist groups can continue concealing their activities.  Though we will continue to be shaken by such atrocities, it is worth remembering Benjamin Franklin; “Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither”.

Dismissing the English Defence League is also a class issue

One of the unfortunate results of the Woolwich killing is the inevitable backlash from far-right groups across the country. From a group that was nearing its dying days, the incident in Woolwich seems to have given it a new lease of life, evident from their Newcastle Demo yesterday. In addition, the Guardian shows that reported attacks on Muslims have soared this week, online and physically.

Contrast this with the increased support of the EDL since the attack;  Prior to Woolwich, it's Facebook group numbered just over 3,000 subscribers. At the time of writing this post, that number has shot up to 120k. While I'm sure the actual 'membership' of the organisation is less, I think that Facebook is probably more indicative of the amount of support the organisation has as a whole, even from people who don't go to their weekend marches. In less than a week, it's probably the most remarkable rate of increase the organisation has seen in its history.

Yet, whats more interesting is how the EDL's resurgence actually tells us a lot about the disparity of our ideological politics- particularly in relation to predominantly middle class, metropolitan liberals in their interaction with the organisation. I'm not talking about Unite Against Facism (UAF) in this particular case, although I suspect many are just as guilty as the liberal Twitterati.

It's easy to berate the EDL. For the most part, people mock them for overt racism, drunken violence and general buffoonery. It makes for some great photos like this;



or this;




Despite ample images, videos and multimedia illustrating the violence and racism inherent in the EDL, you could be stuck asking why so many people have turned to the group, even if they have none of these tendencies. Sure, some might suggest it's short term security in a hostile environment, or perhaps a reaction to political parties that seem to represent the upper middle and higher echelons of society, over young, unemployed white communities from working and underemployed backgrounds. I would argue that while to an extent this may be true, affiliation and support of the EDL also derives from the antipathy and disregard espoused by the liberal intelligensia that occupy column inches and Twitter timelines.

That's because instead of taking the EDL at face value, the liberal left often find themselves in a trap whereby they perpetuate their own form of class politics. Whether its mocking the appearance or manner of particular people, comparing them to participants on the Jeremy Kyle Show or commenting on their lack of intelligence in Facebook comments, such retaliation does little to challenge the EDL's ideology and tackle the actual issues the group poses. Instead, it's reduced to playground name calling and superficial finger pointing, all of which do little more than illuminate the disparities between middle and working class communities. In fact, it's the same type of class snobbery which disassociates such groups from mainstream politics, leaving them vulnerable to the enticing opportunities offered by radical groups.

In this case, its no wonder why the intelligensia's attempts at moralising (ie. "You can't judge religions by a bad apple etc.) have failed abysmally. No matter how many Muslim groups attend Lee Rigby's memorial, publicly denounce the attack, or engage with wider society, the EDL will continue to hold demonstrations and exert their anger on Foreign communities. It's not simply an issue of religion, race or immigration- their anger also consists of issues to do with their own class and identity. And where some are able to say that successive governments have completely disregarded the needs and issues concerning old working class communities, a part of me can't help but to agree.

While it's certainly admirable that politicians and Fleet Street journalists can pen passionate pleas for calm amidst this storm, and for liberal lefties like myself to echo those sentiments, it should be recognized that such messages don't resonate in particular communities where radical groups pick up their constituents. Whether you're looking at English nationalists or a Muslim fundamentalists, there exists a commonality in their recruitment base: young, angry and disenchanted people who have lost faith in their democratic institutions. Where democratic governments and political parties have failed, other groups like the EDL and UKIP have acutely volunteered to bear the flag for ailments of a forgotten class.

Rather than the Middle class liberal left engaging with these important problems, a lot of us (including myself) have fallen into the trap of  dehumanisation. Instead of acknowledging the severity of long term unemployment in particular communities, and how issues like immigration, welfare and cohesion can affect societies at a local level, we instead find it easier to dismiss them through caricatures of drunken hooligans covered in badly drawn tattoos. That might make a great comedic photo and get a few likes on Facebook, but it doesn't eradicate the underlining problems that attract disaffected individuals to groups like the EDL. On the contrary, such abandonment actually makes them more appealing.

In Defence Of Horrific Images

Via Guardian.co.uk

While we are still waiting for more information regarding yesterday's horrible events in Woolwich, South London, the curent locus of debate seems to be fixated on media reporting. This morning, some controversy emerged in regards to the headlines that some of the newspapers printed- especially the Sun  and the Daily Mail, who splashed terms like "Muslim" and "Islamic Fanatic" over the front page.

At the same time, ITV's choice to broadcast a clip of one of the murderers, justifying his actions also sparked a lot of anger. I won't link the video here, just because it's quite unsettling to watch. The general gist is of a bloody-handed man, holding onto blood-stained meat cleavers, stating that he butchered the victim out of revenge against Western military intervention. Despite supposedly having a "Muslim Appearance", as quoted by BBC's Nick Robinson via an undisclosed government source, the man spoke with a distinct south London accent (anyone from London will know this). He was also wearing Addidas trainers.

The Guardian's Roy Greensdale has published an interesting piece justifying why newspapers and TV networks were right to publish the photos and videos.  It's a difficult call, and even an average student journalist like myself can see the harmful implications that might arise from the decisions to publish. Indeed, you only had to go on Twitter last night to see how the photos and videos conjured up an environment of horror and suspicion in the midst of this crisis. In a situation where TV news and mainstream newspapers were the primary news sources, I would certainly see the case of disclosing the information until calm had been restored.

The only problem, is that we don't live in such simple times. Journalists know it, and so did yesterday's killers. Greensdale and others have noted the narcissistic element of these attacks- the men wanted to be caught, they wanted to be plastered online and they wanted their message to be heard. Yes, the media did allow them the opportunity, but not without precedent. After all, the murderer's video wasn't filmed on a BBC news camera, and it wasn't recorded by a Fleet Street journalist. It was filmed on smart phones, by civilians.

This of course, meant that the flow of information couldn't be linear. The mainstream media were one step behind citizens on the ground, who, unbound by any mandatory journalistic ethics, were free to publish the videos online. In fact it's quite telling that one of the key eye-witnesses was an individual who wasn't shy of voicing the gruesome details- including the moment when he saw the victim get beheaded. It was likely that at some point, the video would have been released online regardless of whether news agencies collectively agreed not to publish the sensitive material. Copies would have been made, it would have gone viral, and the press would have to justify why they didn't get there first. Of course, there is a selfish motive- the media are in a precarious position in terms of financial stability and public reputation, particularly in facing an armies of bloggers and citizen journalists.

More importantly, is probably the balance of harms argument- would it be more damaging to publish rather than hide? I think that's a contentious question, but it might be worth revisiting the brilliant C4 drama series, Black Mirror ( I absolutely love BM, brilliant show).  The first episode of series 1 concerns a fictional story regarding the kidnap of a princess, and the blackmailing of a Prime Minister. Using Youtube, Facebook and Twitter, the kidnapper makes his rather crass ransom demands public- so that despite all UK news agencies initially agreeing not to publish the sensitive video, they nor the government, can actually control who sees the sensitive material. It's a great programme, and available on 4OD.

With this in mind, it could be argued that in the context of the current media landscape, it was much better for legitimate news organisations, with fact-checking sources and regulatory frameworks, to verify and contextualise the video rather than citizens. Not because citizen journalists are bad (on the contrary), but because when voices of authority are absent, such information can be appropriated by different groups with far more sinister agendas. Even though some groups did take advantage of the situation yesterday, I'd imagine it would be far worse if this video was left to circulate the net freely.

Should We Really Be Applauding Obama?

Nobody can deny that President Barack Obama has a good sense of humour. His speeches at White House Correspondence Dinners are the stuff of legends, with perfectly timed quips and the dead-pan humour most stand up comedians would envy. Plus, who doesn’t want to see the likes of Newt Gingrich or Donald Trump be rubbished on stage?

This year’s correspondence dinner was no exception. In fact, the Guardian even ran an article asking whether Obama was the ‘funniest politician ever’. His sense of humour may have won him fans all over the world, and probably helped him win a second term, but I couldn’t help but be a bit creeped out by it.

Not because of the jokes themselves, but rather that laughing and applauding a President who has signed off on an unprecedented level of unmanned drone attacks, admitted to having a personal ‘kill list’ and whose administration has actively attacked whistle blowers seems a little insincere. Indeed, as the Bureau of Investigative Journalism has noted, Obama has launched over 300 drone strikes in Pakistan and 66 and counting in Yemen. Beyond the scope of ‘Al-Qaeda Militants’, the strikes have killed thousands of civilians, including harmless women and children. As Glenn Greenwald has noted, many of these drone strikes are, despite the prominent argument, indiscriminate.

In fact, the administration has frequently played around with definitions of what might classify as a militant; generally, a twenty-something male, living in remote mountainous regions where they are likely to be in some form of contact with suspected Al-Qaeda operatives. Beyond the looseness of this definition, its also ineffective; it fosters hatred, not just in the Middle East, but in the West too.

While the Nobel-Prize winning Obama was charming a crowd of hacks, policy wonks and public figures, Guantanamo Bay still remains open. Though the President has recently talked about shutting the centre down, we’ve heard it before with little action. Nor has he condemned continued methods of torture and abuse still actively used by the US military in the prison today.

You might think I’m being a bit unfair to the President. After all, surely with a hostile, Republican dominated congress, we can’t expect him to be the messiah he was more than willing to be characterised by in 2008. Besides, he’s an elected official, and to think he’ll be honest is a pipe dream.

But what about in areas where the President still retains the greatest amount of authority? For example, when Obama signed the National Defence Authorization Act (NDAA), allowing for an indefinite detention of suspected terrorists. That isn’t the first time the administration showed total contempt for the law, notably denying the Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev of his ‘Miranda Rights’, or even his repeated requests for legal counsel.

And what about transparency? Well, we still have that rather murky case involving Bradley Manning, the US military officer whose information became a phenomenon across the world through Wikileaks. Mannings prize for that was a tour of US high security prisons. I’m sure Joe McCarthy would be very proud.

Bring any of this up, and you’ll likely either be dismissed as a ‘hater’, or told to ignore the bad stuff because the President is telling a few jokes. Over a million people have watched the clip on YouTube, with many comments telling people to appreciate a president that can ‘relate to the people’. In fact, this probably is the best indicator of how cynical our politics has become; where we praise style over substance, and charisma over integrity. After all, would we dismiss the war crimes, dilution of civil liberties and total disregard for the law if Bashar-Al-Assad brought home the banter once a year?

Ok, Let's Take UKIP Seriously.

Independent.co.uk

 As expected, UKIP did pretty well in the local elections. The New Statesman's George Eaton has analysed the results here with an aaverage of around 26% of the vote in most wards it was present in.  And with its success blocking any Tory strategy to sieze councils, UKIP will find themselves as the main opposition in many authorities, and will likely be the winners in the 2014 European elections. In fact, the UKIP hit has been so intense that Tory chairman Grant Shapps has finally acknowledged the needs to take the party seriously. 

So what happened? If anyone watched Question Time last night (on an unrelated note, it was held at my old school), most people asked did vote as a form of protest. Reasons that were cited included the 'disconnect' with mainstream parties, parties going against their manifesto pledges, and what seemed to be failing politics. It wasn't that UKIP offered a better alternative (as has been stated before, nobody really knows their policies beyond their stances on immigration and the EU), it was that Farage didn't do politics speak. Yet.

Now with UKIP's greater level of representation, will come new challenges and responsibilities. Indeed, anti-politics is great in terms of electoral campaigns, but not so good when it comes to putting words into action. Unless UKIP councillors can show that they can defend people's interests on a local level, they will find it very difficult when it comes to contesting seats come the general election in 2015.


The media have inevitably gotten into a frenzy about this, including those who played up Farage over the past few months, particularly the Telegraph. As James Moore argues in the Independent today, it is now only right to give UKIP what they've been craving- a place in the political mainstream.  The media should now be seriously engaging with the party over issues to do with the costs of EU exit, its stances on controversial social issues like immigration, and, scrutinise its solutions on how to stimulate economic growth. These are far beyond the questions that UKIP currently faces, where for the most part both newsrooms and political strategy unites have treated it like an outlier.


I would say that we should let UKIP have its fifteen minutes for the moment. It has shaken up the traditional structure of politics, and has at least made future predictions a bit more interesting. But after its time in the sun, Farage and his party should wholeheartedly be brought into the fold of mainstream politics- where deals have to be done, and comprimises have to be made. Judging by the state of the Liberal Democrats at the moment, it's not likely to end well.

Who's Afraid of Nigel?

 Local Elections in the UK take place tomorrow. In the past week, we've been inundated by analysis, attack pieces and predictions from the gurus of Fleet Street. One point they have all agreed on- The UK Independence Party (UKIP) are likely to do extraordinarily well, and may even secure 100+ seats. Currently, it has less than 10.

To put the current situation in perspective; Over the past few weeks, UKIP has gone under immense criticism concerning its lack of background checking candidates. In the most recent debacle, one of its prominent stars is currently facing heavy fire for a 'Nazi Salute' photo. In addition, Rob Hastings and Nigel Morris of The Independent recently conducted an interview with former treasurer Marta Andreasen concerning the inner workings of UKIP. In a nutshell, she basically states that UKIP is the 'Nigel Farage' show, and that he wouldn't have it any other way. Further, an investigation by The Times [Paywall] indicated that UKIP financial plans (derived from leaving the EU, increasing military spending, decreasing expenditure in public sector etc) would leave a black hole of a further £120bn.

You'd imagine with this amount of heat, that UKIP would capitulate. In fact, they seem to be taking it quite well. On the eve of the election, the party are riding at 22%. That's 10% higher than the Lib Dems, and only 2% less than Labour. Surprisingly, the Tories are doing very well considering the state of the economy and general dissatisfaction with the party, and currently hold 31% of the projected vote.

So why are UKIP being pipped to do so well? The general answer is standard; Local elections are great for protest voting, no-one really cares about them and it represents an apathy in British politics. On the other side, UKIP are seen in many communities as the only party that 'represent' the peoples' view- though mainly on social issues. A large part of this derives from 'The Cult of Nigel', of which in the most depressing way, he actually does seem more human than any cabinet or opposition minister.

In recent days, no better was this shown than in Ed Miliband's interview at Radio 4 last week. He was asked 13 times whether his economic plans required more borrowing, and after adopting an attack line centred on increased Government borrowing, he had no choice but to admit that it would have to be done, at least in the short term. Meanwhile, Osborne and Cameron keep jumping from one ratings agency to another to justify their pseudo-austerity measures, all with lacklustre conviction. I don't even think there's a point considering the Lib Dems. What's clear is that out of all of this, a party with a changed tax policy overnight , and rhetoric that fails to translate into tangible statistics [Home Office PDF] is currently enjoying the free publicity given by an anxious press, and the evident fear vocalised by the senior ministers.

As The Guardian's James Ball notes in a manifesto fact-check , despite UKIP's gains tomorrow, it is unlikely to gain control of any council, and will have little chance to put its manifesto pledges into action. Unlike general elections, local ones are supposed to focus more on practicality and efficiency in delivering services and balancing budgets. The fact that local elections have been pushed into the realm of political ideology is far more damning on existing councils. Perhaps some new members from different parties might shake them up a bit.
 
The evidence still suggests that UKIP is really the protest vote of the time. With the Lib Dems now extremely unpopular in government, and the BNP basically relinquished, UKIP has filled the void, and it has done a remarkable job at doing so. Its work over the past few years as a vocal opposition party fronted by a charismatic leader will pay off. The challenge that comes next, is whether the elected candidates put words into action, and prove they can be just as good in office, as they supposedly are outside it.


Just for fun: