On The Syria Vote and its Post Mortem

Haaretz.com

Last night, Members of Parliament rejected the Prime Minister's proposal for British involvement in Syria. It's important to note that this wasn't a proposal to directly intervene in Syria (as there was a general consensus that an official UN report had to first be published), but rather a vote on the principle of military intervention. In any case, the proposal was defeated by Labour and a handful of Lib Dems/Conservatives, with the final tally at 272-285. A replay of the debate itself can be found here.

During the debate, a BBC Panorama team in Syria reported a napalm-like attack launched by a fighter plane in Allepo, Northern Syria. The gruesome images and video make for very disturbing viewing, and is probably the reason why we're hearing a lot of voices stating how 'disgraceful' members of Parliament have been. This morning on Radio 4's Today Programme (link up soon), former Lib Dem leader Paddy Ashdown said:

"our country is a hugely diminished country - I've never felt more depressed or ashamed"


In the aftermath of the vote, I think there are several things that should be clarified;

1. Does David Cameron need to resign before the next election?

No Prime Minister has been defeating in the commons on an issue relating to war and peace since 1782. Further, various government sources also suggested that while a number of Conservative MPs were willing to support the PM on the motion as a principle, they would be less inclined to vote in favour of intervention at the second vote- which had been due on Tuesday.

I find it hard to believe that any leader- regardless of oratory skill- would have been able to convince the HoC to support intervention. Especially considering that less than 10% of Britons would support full military intervention according to the polling site, YouGov. The shadow of disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan still loom, while the supposed successes of British intervention in 'Libya' are certainly questionable. The history of military intervention in the Middle East is filled with failure, which no MP could deny; which is why little has been written about concerning the technicalities of intervention and its aftermath compared to emotionally-driven polemic, not least today by Telegraph columnist (and former Labour man) Dan Hodges.

Does this indicate the PM's weakness? In the short term, yes- but that all depends on how successful any other intervention might actually be. Writing in The Telegraph, Fraser Nelson says:

"But he [Cameron] has spent the last few days talking as if Britain’s identity and place in the world were at stake – and last night, Parliament rejected his vision of the country, and where its interests lie."

So while this was a remarkable "Foreign Policy flop" for Cameron, I'd be hesitant in suggesting we'd see a resignation soon. In fact, depending on how effective any type of intervention might be, he might find himself handsomely rewarded- particularly if post-intervention scenarios make the situation worse, as is the most probable outcome.


2. This wasn't a Miliband Win

While Miliband didn't rule out intervention (a point he repeated on a number of occasions throughout the debate), Labour did present some last minute amendments. The general changes called for a greater role played by the United Nations, referred to ambiguously as the "roadmap". But as a whole, it didn't differ that much from the government's position- only emphasizing higher burdens of proof (something difficult to attain in practice) and authorisation by the UN security council- a move that would be considerably difficult considering the positions held by Russia and China. Regardless this amendment was also defeated in the Commons.

Beyond practical measures, Labour didn't argue their position through any principled route- poor, considering that the party still haven't defined themselves coming up to the election.


3.This was the right call

Some have seen the will of Parliament not as a measured response, but rather shameless politicking- letting Syrians die in order to retain votes. This argument is particularly potent when we see the horrific images coming out of Syria, especially of children.

It's a hard call, but staying out militarily is the best option as a whole; that's because Syria definitely isn't Iraq, and in this current state, there are too many rebel faction groups in opposition to "Assad forces" and their affiliates. Providing military support to 'rebels' isn't clear cut, especially as such groups are also receiving support from Arab states within the region. Being directly involved in Syria isn't a matter of fighting Assad and providing grounds for peace- it's being embroiled in a war whereby the mastery of the region is effectively being determined. Britain doesn't need to be involved in another Middle Eastern war, especially if it's effectively being used as a proxy.

Second, as Slate's Matthew Yglesias shows, military intervention often leads to more civilian casualties than lives saved. :







The authors of the paper (Wood et al.) Conclude their study by stating:

"Supporting a faction’s quest to vanquish its adversary may have the unintended consequence of inciting the adversary to more intense violence against the population. Thus, third parties with interests in stability should bear in mind the potential for the costly consequences of countering murderous groups."

Considering how ruthless we've seen Assad be towards rebel uprising, a proposal arguing intervention on the grounds of 'saving lives' should take this into account- regardless of how well meaning such actions might be.

The Jamie Oliver School of Economics

The habit of reducing complicated economic problems into simple- and unfortunately, rather venemous- observational analysis, is something most people have found themselves doing at least once in their lifetime.

TV chef Jamie Oliver found himself in the firing line, after claiming that many people from poor/ low-income families often turn to 'convenience' foods over healthy, natural options. But to quote his statement in the Radio Times;

"I’m not judgmental but I’ve spent a lot of time in poor communities and I find it quite hard to talk about modern-day poverty,’ the 38-year-old said.

‘You might remember that scene in Ministry Of Food [his television show], with the mum and kid eating chips and cheese out of Styrofoam containers and behind them is a massive f***ing TV. It just didn’t weigh up."


The gist of the statement actually poses an economic problem, regarding income and expenditure:

why do people on low incomes spend higher % of weekly earning on prepared, or convenience foods with high premiums?

Jamie Oliver is right in his general argument- healthy diet options do work out cheaper in the long term compared to convenience diets in real terms. This paper presents quite an interesting model that accounts value in terms of cost per calorie, estimating that the cost of convenience food diets are 52% higher than healthy options.

But as a whole, this isn't too different from aggregate consumption patterns. The government's own statistics via the Family Food Survey 2012 indicate that while families had increased their food consumption by 1.5%, this didn't necessarily translate into buying more food, than it did the price of basic ingredients rising. But as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation noted- the rise in expenditure for low income families went from 15.2- 16.6%; some of which went to 'trading down' ; ie. Spending more on lower quality, prepared foods over higher priced fruits and vegetables.

The second point- something which many commentators often forget, is that the means in which people purchase and consume food isn't black and white. Statements such as "if you're poor, then why buy expensive foods?", while being convenient to ask, don't hold a lot of weight in the real world because it ignores the reason why people eat in the first place. It sounds pretty obvious, but when eating, we make choices before, during and after- and much of that is rooted in ideas beyond models of economic rationality.

The health economists Drewnowski and Specter (2004) posit a hypothesis arguing that health inequalities are directly linked to disparities in terms of both education and income. they argue that in purchasing food there is:

"an inverse relation between energy density (MJ/kg) and energy cost (US dollars/MJ), such that energy-dense foods composed of refined grains, added sugars, or fats may represent the lowest-cost option to the consumer"

While no such study seems to be available in Britain, it's not unfeasible that we'd probably see a similar pattern; ie. fully broken down, junk foods with high energy do work out to be more cost-effective in the long term. In families with few resources, making these types of consumption decisions might be more likely on the basis that high-energy foods (such as ready meals) market themselves as instant sources of good nourishment- making the additional costs added onto the meals appear more valuable. 

Dr.Burns' hypothesis of 'food anxiety' is also important here- consuming food isn't just an economic process- it's a visual one too. So when we ask ourselves about the relationship between obesity and low income, the idea of 'food anxiety' is quite a powerful concept- not least because it conveys psychological states. One part of the argument suggests that ready meal/fast food options also give off the image that longer-lasting produce such as vegetables, fruits and staple foods can be saved for later, presenting the idea that this arrangement is more cost-effective in the long term.

The literature review attached to Burns' paper indicates that obesity does have a link to poverty through decisions made while in a state of 'food anxiety'. So while Oliver might be right in a numerically, the fact that most consumers don't purchase their groceries with only efficiency in mind makes the argument a bit disingenuous, especially when branding a section of the population.

In that sense, I do believe that Oliver's efforts- to show that good food can be made easily, at a low cost, are commendable. It's just a shame he had to fire crass generalisations beforehand.

Data, David Miranda and What We Should Be Asking

There are three questions I think all journalists should ask when looking at the ongoing case between David Miranda, The Guardian and the various intelligence agencies in both the UK and US;

1. In the digital age, what 'defines' a journalist- who can be classified as a journalist?
2. Does the work of journalists threaten national security?
3.What is the role of journalists today?

The questions come in light of continuing controversy over the arrest of David Miranda, the partner of Glenn Greenwald.

Greenwald initially argued that his partner had gone to visit their mutual friend, and therefore was an ordinary civilian; the detainment of Mr.Miranda- and the questioning he received by UK security services in regard to future leaks by his partner were therefore uncalled for, and potentially illegal.

Yet reluctantly, I think Louise Mensch (the former Tory MP turned....something in the US) actually makes some good observations in her blog. Of course, while there is a bit too much praise of UK security services, she has a point that Mr.Miranda was meeting Laura Poitras- the film maker assisting Greenwald. Further, Miranda's flights were paid for by The Guardian, and the flash drives he held are said to have encrypted data on them- presumably related to his husband's continuing work.

In that case- does that make him a journalist?

On the one hand, yes- after all, he's carrying data with the intent of publication, and depending on how you 'define' journalism, carrying data can be seen as part of the gathering process (much like the process of gathering photos/interviews and then process of  physically taking it back to a newsroom). The question that remains in this case, is whether Miranda actually knew what was on the flash drives; if they were encrypted, and he's not involved in the journalistic side of the NSA files, then perhaps he should be considered a courier?

Professor Richard Sambrook of Cardiff University's school of Journalism likens this to a proxy- whereby Miranda was being used as a means of transferring data offline- essentially part of the journalistic practice. Those who are defending UK security services argue that much like drug mules, holding Miranda can be justified on this basis- especially if the data he's carrying could be used by terrorist organisations or individuals with other vested interests.

Here's the real problem at hand; The law hasn't actually accommodated a coherent legal framework for the management and distribution of data.

This isn't just important for investigative journalists, but for all of us as what we engage in more digital mediums. Consider the problems that occur via peer-to-peer networks, often accused of causing media companies to lose money due to copyright infringement. The Digital Economy Act 2010 adresses this problem (ineffectively) through encouraging ISPs to block transmissions of data to a particular computer.

But surely this is different for public data concerning the state, particularly in light of open government license? - so what about the means of transmission? I'd hesitate in arguing that the data Mr.Miranda was carrying was subject to any form of private ownership or subject to a form of copyright that would fit into the model posited by the DEA 2010. Regardless of what capacity Miranda was working in, carrying the data on flash drives didn't overtly breach any existing laws, and while elaborate, is a staple component of investigative journalism, particularly with information we are unable to gain under the existing Freedom of Information act. The only plausible defence the security services might have, would be if there was a significant threat to the U.K- a fact of which there is little evidence to back up.

This isn't to say the security services were totally in the wrong- I'd just argue that it was focused in the wrong place. How was this data actually found? Who are the other sources that leaked the information- and what is the process by which Greenwald and the Guardian are selecting and editing cables?

I think these are far more interesting questions, which are much more relevant to journalism and public accountability.

Dispatch from Gaza : An Interview with Harry Fear

Harry Fear is an English activist, journalist and reporter who has lived in the Gaza Strip since 2008. He made his name posting his work onto Youtube, and last year live-streamed Operation Pillar of Cloud- Israel’s eight day Ariel attack on Gaza. Hussein Kesvani speaks to the film maker:

What’s your background? Why did you want to report from Gaza?

I started producing documentaries on injustices in 2010.  I had decided that it was vital to use the medium of video to combat social and global injustices. These mediums are particularly potent in awakening individual conscience and erasing apathy in viewers, necessary steps for movement towards a better world.

Actually, I was always drawn to visit Gaza since I was young-I followed heroic journalist John Pilger’s articles in the New Statesman  on the Israel-Palestine situation.I’ve developed my personal knowledge, outrage and action on the injustice over the last few years.

My first time in Gaza was only last summer in May 2012. Since then my life has oriented here, as I’ve been increasingly drawn into the opportunities to do meaningful change-making media work in Palestine.

 Would you classify yourself as a citizen journalist or activist?

Every time I release a video, make a media appearance or give a lecture, I ask myself: how can I explain my work and my title to people? I see myself as an independent campaigning journalist. I suppose you could call me a media activist, or a citizen journalist involved in advocacy journalism. Why hold a placard and picket the Israeli embassy in London, I asked myself, when I can support the protesters by documenting and delivering their activism to thousands around the world? In a way I see myself as a technical practitioner of today’s modern technologies, exploiting them to generate media power for a cause of justice, dabbling in guerrilla film-making, for example. On other days I see myself as an artist, moving from one genre of journalism to another, for maximal impact — usually taking a clear and robust stand on a cause and capturing embedded empathy.

You’ve been covering events in Gaza for quite a long time. How did you start off, and was it difficult to produce content to begin with?

At one level it was hard to produce content in Gaza. I’ve found that ones’ understanding of the situation changes dramatically on seeing the facts on the ground and spending time in the Strip. My terms of reference have changed much more than I’d have expected. I certainly continue on a path of increasing my understanding and journalistic evolution as I continue my work. As I’ve produced content in Gaza I’ve never worked with career fixers or translators, quite deliberately. My desire has always been to understand un-commercially-compromised Palestinian perspectives, ingest them, and then do what I can to communicate stories of suffering and important perspectives to the Western world.

On the last point- how did the language barrier affect you?

The language barrier still affect me a great deal, although my Arabic has improved. I am not fluent in Arabic, and rely on translators for production. I’ve found that I can now predict what subjects are saying and interpret body language, intonation and keywords, so that I’m decreasingly reliant on word-for-word translation assistance. I recently initiated a project with one of Gaza’s (several) universities to setup an online database of Palestinian fixers and translators, for foreign media workers, to decrease journalistic barriers to entry in covering Gaza.

Most of us in the UK only hear snippets of what really goes on in Gaza and the Middle East region- it can create some quite polarising and distorted narratives. Have your experiences changed your attitude to the conflict and what would you say are the biggest misconceptions we have?

The fundamental problem is that we’ve historically had a Western media narrative that’s dehumanised Palestinians, reducing them to ‘terrorists’, ‘Islamists’, irrational actors, aggressors, and peace-rejecting — that’s not just a misconception- it’s explicitly dangerous.

However, this is slowly breaking down as people start to see a truer realistic image of the ‘conflict’ as Israel’s reputation depreciates, following milestones like 2006’s Lebanon War, 2008-09’s Gaza War, 2010’s Gaza Aid Flotilla Raid, recent continued settlement expansion in the West Bank, and November’s Gaza war. In relation to Gaza , the armed resistance groups and Hamas are probably most misunderstood by Britons. Although, I can’t apologise for illegal indiscriminate retaliatory rocket fire, I condemn the mainstream media’s ignoring of the desperate context in which the rocket fire emanates.

It’s been a fatal media flaw to only pay attention to the Israeli military’s narrative. The Hamas movement is not a terrorist organisation anymore than the British Labour Party or Conservative Party are terrorist organisations. The Hamas movement or Hamas’ politburo are not the same as the Al-Qassam Brigades (Hamas’ paramilitary wing). The simplified categorisation of the whole movement as a terrorist organisation is an intellectual failure. Hamas continues to govern Gaza under a seven-year-old mandate, while it maintains continued  support. Another important misconception is that Palestinians in Gaza need humanitarian support as a priority. Our priority should be political support to end the illegal siege that starves a resourceful and brilliant people into poverty and punishing imprisonment.

How has a Hamas government affected life for ordinary Palestinians?
Hamas has very limited political options to respond to Israeli occupation. Their official policy is that armed resistance is the only way to liberate Palestine from occupation. It’s true that diplomatic attempts have failed because Israel is unwilling to justly settle the conflict, even with a long-term ceasefire deal on the 1967 lines — the Palestine Papers prove that. Palestinians don’t really have a partner for peace with the Israeli state. The main thing afflicting Gazans is the siege, which there is little Hamas can do to solve, other than facilitate the underground smuggling system with Egypt.

 Palestine recently was awarded ‘observer’ status by the United Nations. Do you think that this is a good starting point for proper negotiations, or another obstacle?

Actually this could prove a spark (among others) towards proper negotiations, because it would force Israel to recognise the need for a Palestinian state to be established sooner rather than later, as the international community’s temperature of intolerance towards Israeli occupation increases. However, UN pressure would not constitute sufficient pressure to force Israel to make concessions to negotiate. Israel would have to freeze settlement expansion proper and recognise all Palestinian factions including Hamas, for instance.

 How have things been since OPD last November? Was it a challenge covering what was going on- including the aftermath of the war?

The families mourn, meanwhile there is more reconstruction to effect. Since the war, five Palestinians have been killed, including one militant by an airstrike. That’s much less bloody than before OPD. In this sense, Gaza is now a relatively safer place than it was a year ago, if Palestinians stay away from the land borders and Israeli navy. So what remains is a relatively suffocating economic siege that drains opportunity and prosperity from Palestinians.                      

For me, covering the war was a spiritual, emotional, psychological and physical test of strength, steadfastness and security. I’m certainly left deeply-affected by my experiences during those bloody 8-days. Palestinians say that Israel’s 8-day bombardment campaign was unprecedentedly ferocious in aerial force, terrorising civilians to new limits. I am grateful that I was in Gaza during the war and was able to do something hopefully constructive in having tried reduce Israel’s media impunity.

What do you think the West can and should be doing to help the Gazans from this point- particularly considering their support for Israel?

Western states should simply enforce international law, including United Nations resolutions. It really is that simple, but that’s going to be hard because the US, UK et al. have flagrantly flouted and manipulated international law in recent history. Western states should at least stop ideologically, diplomatically, economically and militarily supporting Israel.

How do you think things might change in line with the paradigm shifts going on in the wider Middle East ? For example, considering what’s going on in Syria, Lebanon and Turkey, do you think the Palestinian issue occupies a lesser importance, or a new strategic importance?

Firstly, from a media agenda perspective, any distraction away from the story of solving the Israel-Palestine injustice is strategically beneficial for Israel, as it gobbles up more Palestinian land and resources. Israel is worried about Syria, Lebanon and Iran; the Gaza prison is containable, as is the West Bank, as things stand. I’m pessimistic in this regard. The supposed increased democracy in Egypt, for instance, hasn’t yet borne any fruit for the

What’s the greatest challenge being a citizen reporter in such an unstable region?

The greatest difficulty is getting an audience to pay attention to a region and narratives that are not necessarily ‘hot’ or ‘sexy’, and to which they don’t naturally feel a necessity to follow. To properly report I rely on economic independence, and so it’s also difficult to sustain myself financially as I work full-time doing this work. I have to rely on viewer donations, which can’t be taken for granted.

Where do you see yourself going in a few years? Will you want to remain in Gaza, or report other conflicts?

Gaza will always remain closest in my heart, however I hope to be covering other injustice zones (not just armed conflicts) in the coming years.

 Considering the restart of peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine, do you think there is hope for a lasting peace in the form of a two-state solution? How do you think the Gaza Strip might change in the next few years?

There are incredibly significant political and practical obstacles to the realisation of two-state solution. Yet, although a two-state solution (presumably with land-swaps) is not practically impossible,  I don't see how it would solve the fundamental issues of the 'conflict'.

How could a two-state solution really lead to a lasting peace?, I ask myself frequently and rhetorically. I don't see how a two-state solution would satisfy Israel's rational security fears. Most likely, 'terrorism' would emanate from the new Palestinan state, aimed at Israel, aimed at recovering access to Historic Palestine, from groups like the Islamic Jihad movement. Frankly, a two-state solution is the dealing with replacement of one historic injustice with a 21st century injustice, codified and ever-egregious. Let's be clear: a two-state solution for the Palestinians means a massive loss. A loss that I don't detect most Palestinians in Gaza are willing to make. It's all very elementary, one just has to look at the Disappearing Land of Palestine image with milestone maps since the beginning of the 20th century, to see the dynamic of the conflict and what it's all about, and to see the real context of a two-state solution.

The practical situation looks bleak for the fast-growing population of Gaza. Foreseeably, instability in Egypt will remain for the coming weeks (or even months) and will impact heavily on Gaza's economy and will also prohibiting Palestinians in Gaza from travelling to further afield. The Israeli side of the siege does not look like it's going to loosen any time soon. There's no real hope that there will be a refreshing of Palestinan representation with democratic elections any time soon.

Despite this, every day in Gaza I see a widespread commitment to faith and conscious steadfastness.

David Miranda Is One of Many

 Big news topic today was David Miranda's arrest at Heathrow Airport, under the Terrorism Act of 2006 (original in 2000). Miranda is the partner of Glenn Greenwald, the Guardian journalist who uncovered the secret NSA files, which has prompted a re-examination of cyber and national security.

However, Miranda isn't the only one who's been a victim of the Terrorist Act. Using a sample of Government data from gov.co.uk, I made a very simple bar graph illustrating the number of total arrests made, against the proportion of 'charges' made under the act. At every level, significantly more arrests have been made compared to charges or convictions.

Other areas of interest could include racial disparities (brown skinned men are most likely to be arrested under the act), regional difference or what aspect of the act was used to make the charges (to look at peaks and troughs).

In any case, the graph vividly indicates the limitatons of the act, not least by means of stop and search measures.

An Interview From Egypt

I recently had the opportunity to speak to a young demonstrator in Egypt, concerning the current violent protests and military action that has engulfed Egypt over the past week. Thank you to both Soumaia and everyone else involved. Can you tell me about yourself?
I am Soumaia Hashad. An AUC undergraduate Actuarial Science student, junior year. 
What's the situation in Egypt at the moment on the ground? For more than 7 hours, the police and military have been killing the peaceful protestors in Rabaa and Nahda. The Nahda sit-in have been cleared and we don't know how many martyrs are on the grounds there and how many injuries since the police arrests or kills anyone who tries to approach the square. In Cairo University, in the engineering faculty, there is a number of protestors that are locked in the building, some of them are injured, unable to leave the building because they might get shot any minute. Nahda protestors were able to sit-in in Mostafa Mahmoud square, and the police forces are using tear gas and fire bullets to clear the sit-in, but the numbers are high. 20 martyrs or more from Mostafa Mahmoud sit-in. 

As for Rabaa, there are more than 300 martyrs and 2000 injured. The military and police threw tear gas at the sit-ins using helicopters as well as snipers in helicopters too. 
How did this all start? 3. Sissi knows that his end is near if our wills win against his. The old corrupted regime is aware of the fact that if we win, they die. But they are fools, and they still believe that they can win against the people. Their foolishness is causing the bloodshes. But again, this is freedom's price tag. 
Were you part of the revolution that took down Mubarak? (would you consider yourself part of that generation?)- further, did you support the MB or Mursi? 4. Yes I was part of the revolution since 25th January. I was against the MB's policies when it came to the parlaiment and other political issues before that; however, I supported Morsi since the first round of elections since I believed that he was the best candidate out there then. 
How are the liberals/anti-MB reacting? Do they support Sissi + the military? 5. There are some respectful liberals that are anti-Morsi who respect their humanity and minds, who believe that Military rule is an unacceptable rule and those people are down in the streets with us. Other liberals are blinded by their hate for the MB, that they forgot their humanity. And I don't consider them liberals, I call them inhumane. 
Do you think this will be resolved soon? If not, how long do you think the conflicts will be going on for- and will the military succeed? 6. No. Even if Morsi is back, we will stay in the streets demanding justice and clearing the old regime from any political position. We will stay in the streets to demand clearing the minister of interior affairs and military and court of justice. We are so sure inshaAllah, that we will succeed with Allah's help; the military sucks at politics and will always be, their foolishness will bring them down.

On CCTV and Social Contracts

British-Gazette.co.uk 

The Government have released a guideline for CCTV use across the country today. The document, which include both precedent and guiding principles can be found here.

The document opens with the premise that the state has a role in ensuring security for its citizens- and as the dangers become more unpredictable, there is a necessity for technologies like CCTV and other methods of surveillance:

"The government considers that wherever overt surveillance in public places is in pursuit of  legitimate aim and meets a pressing need, any such surveillance should be characterised surveillance by consent, and such consent on the part of the community must be informed consent and not assumed by a system operator."

Beyond the buzzwords, the document doesn't say particularly much about the boundaries, or the defined legal limits of surveillance proceedures. Point 2.2 suggests that the prima facie of the Home Office's argument rests on the assertion that surveillance is necessary to protect wider society.

It does offer a safeguard in the form of a new commissioner, but its remit isn't defined (at least as far as I can tell). It does come at an interesting time though, especially considering the Obama administration's attempts to justify the various NSA programs exposed earlier this year.

Publishing these documents seems to suggest that the debate is moving toward questions readdressing the obligations between state and society. Effectively, it's examining the age-old question of the social contract in the context of an increasingly interconnected, digital age.

Obama Press Conference: FISA and the Patriot Act

The Obama administration recently have provided it's justification of surveillance measures disclosed by Edward Snowden in the Guardian earlier this year. Snowden had exposed, among other things, the NSA 'PRISM' programme, which allowed the US government to remotely monitor the communications of all US citizens.

The administration released two 'white papers' (yet to be sourced) which deal primarily with the legal precedent behind monitoring. As Seth Ackerman notes in the US Guardian, the paper argues that remote monitoring, data mining and bulk collections can be justified under section 215 of the Patriot Act, which allows the collection of:

"any tangible things," so long as the FBI "specif[ies]" that the order is "for an authorized investigation . . . to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities."

While the administration has proposed to review measures of transparency and accountability,which includes the secret court that authorises surveillance measures (FISA), the general point to take away from the press conference is simple; the patriot act still lives, and the administration wants it to be stronger.

But is this hipocritical of Obama?

 I don't think it necessarily is, and here's why; Have a listen to an excerpt of a speech he made in 2007 about the Patriot Act:

The actual issue at hand concerns the nature of surveillance itself- what constitutes a violation of privacy and individual rights, and where does the balance between liberty and security lie in the digital age?

According the the initial report (pdf) the administration's justification rests on the collection of big data (metadata)- records that ISPs, Phone companies etc have recorded and archived and tend to be of public knowledge. So Obama argues that actual surviellance can only be invoked after an automated analysis of the metadata, which can flag up certain individuals and groups, therefore falling into the remit of national security.

Proposed reforms may be able to redress the age old problem of the leviathan, but- as the administration finally seems to acknowledge, it can only effectively be done if individual privacy can be guaranteed.

Zero-Hour Contracts Reflect a Weak Economy

mirror.co.uk

Recent outrage concerning ‘zero-hour’ contracts has dominated the headlines this past week. 
Revising their estimate up from 25,000 to around 1 million, the Office of National Statistics has admitted that the number of UK workers on these contracts- which don’t guarantee work hours, standard rates of pay or security- are probably far greater than was once believed. Furthermore, it’s not just your typical high street chain cutting their overheads through this measure. In fact, even Her Majesty is getting a piece of the action.

I am  surprised at what elements have been focused on throughout this investigation. Yes, hacks, pundits and even Vince Cable have voiced their concerns, suggesting that these contracts are exploiting workers, particularly new entrants to the labour market, as well as the most vulnerable. That’s because for the most part, they to be implemented for low-skilled work, where labour can easily be removed and replaced. A report from the Work Foundation states:

“Those on zero hour contracts are more likely to be women (56 %). Zero hours as a share of the workforce are most common in the arts, entertainment, and recreation services (2.5 % of the workforce); in accommodation and food services (2.2 % of the workforce); and healthcare services (1.2 %). Not surprisingly, they are most common in caring and leisure occupations (1.7 per cent) and also among the less skilled (1.4 %)”

Those defending these contracts rejoice in its ability to ‘empower’ employers to take advantage of a ‘vibrant, flexible labour market’. No better is this argument articulated than by Katie Hopkins, who when she isn’t being the best in real life troll ever, apparently is a businesswoman. Writing for the Huffington Post a few days ago, she says:

“Zero hour contracts create an innate sense of competition (found in all self employed people that I work with) that makes people hungry for work. People perform better on a zero hour contract. Every hour they deliver for that business is another hours work they may gain later in the week.”

Beyond the fact that the entire piece (linked) is based purely on anecdotal evidence (I’m yet to see any empirical data proving that these contracts actually increase productivity), Hopkins’ language is important here; essentially as she suggests that it’s fear that motivates workers. Fear that they might lose a source of income necessary to look after their families. To me, the last sentence is even more chilling- implying that workers without stability need to comply with their employers if they wish to retain their jobs. Hopkins can sugar-coat it with as much Ayn Rand inspired rhetoric as she likes, but she’s pretty much glorifying the ability to legally exploit the vulnerability of employees, all for the good of “free enterprise”.

I’m not completely against the use of these contracts. Having interviewed a number of people in the course of researching this, I will readily admit that they can be of use- in particular to students working part-time, for such arrangements can provide both income and experience without the need to sacrifice other activity.

However, I’d argue that such benefit is limited to particular groups; the biggest problem with working under vulnerable terms and conditions is that it also provides little opportunity to move up the ladder, especially in low-paid, low-skilled work.

A recent post on the Freakonomics blog deals with this issue quite well- it argues that traditionally low-paying employers would find difficulty in implementing any form of ‘living wage’ or stable contract, simply because historically they were never designed to do so. Drawing on John Suroweiki’s piece in The New Yorker, it argues that this issue should be seen in a wider context, concerning the nature of Western economies themselves. 

Suroweiki offers a structural suggestion- that federal policies aren’t doing particularly well in creating higher-wage ‘middle class’ jobs that would provide both the income support and the career scope sought out by most graduates and medium income wage earners. In comparison, a Trade Union Congress report suggests that 4 in 5 jobs created since June 2010 are low paid.

Why is this the case? Historically, the nature of the labour market has changed, as indicated by Oxford University’s Avner Offer (pdf), who notes that where the majority of workers in the mid-20th century worked in manual labour, having the ability to negotiate salary and conditions through collective bargaining, consumer driven economies do not accommodate such conditions. In part, this is also because of the nature of the retail industry itself. Where companies like Apple, McDonalds and Sports Direct rely on selling cheap products as a means of turning over profit, low wages are a necessary part of the equation. Without drastically reducing the wages of employees, it might be the case that hiring people on a short term basis is not just easier for managers- it’s also more cost-effective.

So Zero-Hour contracts aren’t necessarily a new instrument of consumer capitalism designed to oppress the working man, nor are they a godsend for business. Rather, they are far more useful in indicating just how poor the state of the economy actually is; While failing to produce tangible, long-term growth through middle-class/professional jobs, hiring people on short term contracts simply  only increases levels of underemployment. More worrying, it suggests that the root of current growth now rests in industries where low pay is essential to survival.

Surely, that can’t be a great message for anyone.