Window on your World

BBC Radio 4, asking for listeners to send in pix of what they’re doing, or find interesting at 5PM today.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/pm/windowonyourworld_20061205.shtml

This is my contribution.

Here’s how to send us your picture for Window On Your World.

By Post: Window On Your World, PM, Room G601, BBC News Centre, London W12 7RJ.
Sorry – we can’t return any…in the style of Vision On.

By email: pm@bbc.co.uk – please put Window On Your World in the subject line.

From your mobile phone – 07725 100 100 – you must mark it Photo for PM.

However you send them, feel free to add any information you like. Maybe you can tell us what the picture shows, or where it was taken, or whether it’s typical of your view of the world at 5pm – or how long you’ve been listening to us. It’s up to you.

Thank you for taking part. Tomorrow, we’ll let you know where the pictures can be seen.

>>>>>

pm@bbc.co.uk

Hi there
Please accept my offering to your “Window On Your World” report
Well, in common with many, here I am at 5pm, sitting in front of a computer in my living room / office. Hopefully a slight variation from some, in that there are two cameras involved. The one I took it with, and the other, a webcam enabling me to have a video conversation, discussing some work.
Cheers
Alan Lodge, Nottingham

Posted in . | Leave a comment

Indymedia: Tash’s ‘collected’ Posts

Sorry for not keeping up with many postings on my blog here. But over recent times, I’ve been adding much of my work to Nottingham & UK Indymedia.

Please check Tash’s ‘collected’ Posts @

http://tinyurl.com/ynttvo

Cheers …………………………>>>

Posted in . | Leave a comment

Public Order and Freedom of Expression

Wednesday 6 December 2006 :: 18:30 – 19:30
Lecture Theatre, Belgrave Centre, Nottingham Law School, Nottingham Trent University

“Everyone has the right to freedom of expression.
Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly.”

Distinguished Academic Lawyer, Professor Sir David Williams, is visiting Nottingham Trent University on Wednesday 6 December 2006 to deliver a lecture “Public Order and Freedom of Expression”.

Sir David’s lecture will be concerned with both the traditional law and principles relating to freedom of assembly and with the impact of new legislation and new responses with regard, for instance, to anti-terrorism, to race and religion, and to new forms of protest. It will involve an inquiry into many pressing issues of legal, political and social concern.

Sir David has taught at the Universities of Nottingham and Oxford and has served on many Royal Commissions, government advisory groups, councils and committees (including Council on Tribunals, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, the Commission on Energy and the Environment, and the Clean Air Council). Knighted in 1991, he is an honorary Queen’s Counsel and was President of Wolfson College, Cambridge, for twelve years where he was Vice-Chancellor for seven years (1989-1996).

This event will be held from 18.30-19.30 on Wednesday 6 December 2006 in the Lecture Theatre of Nottingham Law School’s Belgrave Centre, Nottingham Trent University, Chaucer Street, Nottingham. It is free to attend although places must be booked in advance by emailing us or calling +44 (0) 115 848 8786. Please be advised that audience members are requested to be seated by 18.25 and latecomers may not be admitted. A drinks reception will take place immediately after the lecture.

For further details please contact:
Sandra Ball
Tel: +44 (0)115 848 8786

Posted in . | Leave a comment

Flash Mob :: Liverpool Street Station

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwHNLlR9R3M]

Posted in . | Leave a comment

Party Party Nottingham

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX8ki6HKauA]

Posted in . | Leave a comment

Indymedia journalist shot dead by paramilitary during protest in Oaxaca, Mexico

William Bradley Roland, also known as Brad Will, 36, a documentary filmmaker and reporter for Indymedia New York in Mexico, Bolivia and Brazil, died today of a gunshot to the chest when pro-government attackers opened fire on a barricade in the neighborhood of Santa Lucia El Camino, on the outskirts of Oaxaca, Mexico. He died with his video camera in his hands.’

Brad had been in Oaxaca taking video and reporting on the state wide popular uprising and teacher strike that began in June with the violent attempted removal of the striking teachers from their encampment in the centre of Oaxaca City by federal police forces. 3 others were also killed alongside him (making 4 dead in total); 1 member of Radio Universidad was also injured: he was taken to the hospital in a volkswagen van as police would not let any ambulances come.

Since the beginning of the strike in June, teachers and other groups have formed the APPO – the Popular Assembly of the Oaxacan People – and have called for the removal of the governor of state Ulises Ruiz of the PRI. There is a long history of Mexico using government sponsored paramilitaries to repress social movements, including a massacre of hundreds of students in Mexico City in 1968. As reports of protesters surrounded by armed government forces and police continue to pour in, activists in cities around the world are planning protests at Mexican embassies and in cyberspace in outcry against the violent aggression against the people of Oaxaca

Indymedia Activist and Photojournalist Brad!

His physical life ended in Oaxaca just the other day. His singing, his photography, his energy, and his inspiration of SO MANY OTHERS will live on forever.

Brad Will, Indymedia journalist killed in Oaxaca

Last videotape shot by Brad Will, Indymedia journalist killed by Mexican plainclothes police in Oaxaca City, Mexico.

..

Posted in . | Leave a comment

Arrested for taking pictures! [again]

We have run this story on Indymedia and beyond:

http://indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/nottinghamshire

On Saturday 18th March photographer and serial Indymedia contributor Alan Lodge – or Tash – was arrested after taking photos of armed police in public. Tash denied the charge of wilfully obstructing a police officer at Nottingham Magistrates Court on Monday March 27. Defending solicitor Paul Dhami told the court: “The officers took exception to his presence, and one took it upon himself to physically impede Tash and then arrested him.” The arrest came only weeks after Nottingham police issued guidelines to their officers reminding them to respect journalists’ rights.

On the way to do some shopping and visiting in town, I diverted to follow some police activity, that turned out to be an armed turnout. Helicopter overhead and the heavy mob tearing about near Huntingdon Street and the Mansfield Road, with many guns, here in the centre of Nottingham. I tried to tell the armed policeman ‘look, I’m just trying to do my job’. Now, I have photographed armed incidents before and have not been so obstructed. But this time, I ended up being arrested for doing what I am legally allowed to do. Taking photographs in a public place.

Being opposed in this activity by the police, is not so unusual for many of us. But this time, it is only weeks after the police issues some guidance to their officers, reminding them of their manners and that it is so permitted. As it further happens, I’m the chap that had been pressing for thier introduction, here in Nottinghamshire.

As I am currently facing charges resulting from this incident, I am not allowed to tell you all about the ins-and-outs of the case, so I offer you this release and some background info on the guidelines, and tell you that you will be hearing more about it in time. And, so will they…….!

***

NOTTINGHAM NUJ :: News Release – 27 March 2006

The National Union of Journalists is backing Nottingham photographer Alan Lodge in a court case which could have implications for journalists everywhere.

Mr Lodge was arrested and charged with wilfully obstructing a police officer after attempting to photograph armed police in the St Anns area of the city.

Mr Lodge formally denied the charge when he appeared before Nottingham Magistrates court today. Defending the case, Paul Dhami of Thompsons Solicitors told the court how Mr Lodge saw armed officers on Alfred Street in Nottingham on the afternoon of Saturday 19th March.

“The officers took exception to his presence, and one took it upon himself to physically impede Alan and then arrested him,” Mr Dhami told the court.

“His bag containing camera equipment and his mobile phone were taken as evidence. Apart from the memory card inside the camera, there is no basis for this action.”

Mr Dhami also referred to a set of guidelines recently agreed between the National Union of Journalists and Nottinghamshire’s Chief Constable Steve Green. “It would appear that the officer in question was either not aware of these guidelines or chose to ignore him.”

The prosecution asked for the case to be adjourned for five weeks for a pre trial review. This has been scheduled for 9.45am on 2 May at Nottingham Magistrates Court. Mr Lodge was given unconditional bail.

Speaking outside the court, NUJ Nottingham Branch Secretary, Kevin Stanley, said: “Cases like these raise important questions about the right for photographers to carry out their duties in a public place. We will continue argue vigorously that Alan has done nothing wrong and should not have been arrested.”

***

Thus, if the wheels have come off in Notts, at the first test, we wonder about the sincerity of police, in thier wider adoption.

The story [can only] continue.

NUJ website, now carrying the story so far at: http://www.nuj.org.uk/inner.php?docid=1260

NUJ Freelance – May06 Defend the Nottingham One! http://media.gn.apc.org/fl/0605tash.html?i=flindex&d=2006_05

Indymedia posting http://indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/nottinghamshire/2006/03/336778.html

Indymedia Feature http://indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/nottinghamshire/2006/03/337223.html

onwards and upwards.

Tash

Below, is a little background on how I came to be in this position!

*****

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE POLICE
GUIDELINES FOR THE POLICE AND MEDIA AT INCIDENTS

***

1. The media has a legitimate role to play in informing the public and they will attend the scene of incidents. The presence of a photographer or reporter at an incident does not of itself constitute any unlawful obstruction or interference.

2. Journalists need to collect information about an incident as quickly as possible. Some of this information may seem irrelevant, unimportant or improper to an officer. However, as long as the journalist does not break the law, or interfere with an investigation, or cross a cordon, the police officer should not impede the reporter. Journalists who break the law will be dealt with in the same manner as any other offender.

3. A crime scene remains closed to the media whilst evidence is being gathered and detailed forensic examinations take place. The reasons for denial of access should be explained to the journalist and access granted as soon as possible with permission from the Senior Investigating Officer.

4. Journalists have the right to photograph and report events that occur on public property. The police may invite journalists on to private property where an event of public interest has occurred and they have the permission of the owner. They should enter peacefully and not cause any physical damage or attempt to alter any details for photographic purposes. The rights of an owner of private property should be respected and may lead to journalists being asked to leave. If the owner of the property does not give permission then any attempt to gain access would be trespass.

5. Any journalist should be able to show relevant media identification if asked. At the scene of an incident this identification should be visible at all times.

6. Police officers should not restrict journalists from taking pictures or asking questions of other parties, even though the officer may disagree with the journalist’s purpose. It is not a police officer’s role to be the arbiter of good taste and decency. It is an editor’s role to decide what to use.

7. Police officers do not have the authority to prevent a person taking a photograph or to confiscate cameras or film, and such conduct could result in criminal, civil or diciplinary action.

8. In the event of a distressed or bereaved individual making a specific request for the media to leave them in peace the officer should pass this information on to the journalist. However, this is advice on which journalists and their editors must base their own decisions. If the situation becomes an identifiable Breach of the Peace then journalists, as any other citizen, have a duty to disperse if asked to do so.

9. Journalists should not park their vehicles in a way that will obstruct other traffic or hamper emergency vehicles or officers carrying out their lawful duty.

These guidelines have beenn sanctioned by Chief Constable Steve Green and the National Union of Journalists.

If you would like more information or advice on a specific issue please call Nottinghamshire Police Corporate Communications

*****

this is from my FOI post at:

http://indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/nottinghamshire/2005/10/325499.html?c=on#c132287

Police treatment of photographers at incidents

Using the Freedom of Information Act myself, I had to compose a report on my recent adventures, and have posted it up on a couple of my professional NUJ lists.

So, Having taken the trouble to explain this process to fellow photographers, I thought I might share it with you lot also, since police / Indymedia relations at incidents are just as bad. What might get done for change for ‘properly accredited photographers’, may have influence on ‘ordinary photographers’ and ‘us lot’, if I get some the changes I’m pushing for.

So here you are, for your information also. Please check out the story, recounted on these posts:

[Imc-notts-features] Tash on the police http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-notts-features/2005-October/1011-m8.html

[Imc-uk-features] Police treatment of photographers at incidents http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2005-October/1013-iy.html

Thus, I may have had an effect on some of the issue of concern to me. I hope you see that it may be useful to you, in pursuit of gathering evidence to argue for your interests also …..

***

NUJ calls on police forces to adopt crime scene guidelines

Published: Thursday, February 16, 2006

By Jon Slattery

New guidelines for police and journalists at crime and accident scenes and other incidents have been drawn up by Nottinghamshire Police and the NUJ.

It’s hoped that they will help prevent potential conflicts between police and journalists. The NUJ wants other forces across the country to adopt the new agreement.

The nine-point guide — contained in a pocket-sized card — has been distributed to all Nottinghamshire Police personnel and NUJ members in the broadcasting, print, PR, photography and freelance sectors.

The guidelines say that “the media has a legitimate role to play in informing the public… the presence of a photographer or reporter at the incident does not itself constitute unlawful obstruction or interference.”

They also state: “Journalists need to collect information about an incident as quickly as possible. Some of this information may seem irrelevant, unimportant or improper to an officer.

However, as long as the journalist does not break the law, or interfere with an investigation, or cross a cordon, the police officer should not impede the reporter. Journalists who break the law will be dealt with in the same manner as any other offender.”

The guidelines say that police officers should not restrict journalists from taking pictures or asking questions of other parties, even though the officer may disagree with the journalist’s purpose.

NUJ Nottingham branch secretary Kevin Stanley said: “We have had countless reports in the past of police officers being at the very least unhelpful to our members, and at worst obstructing them in their job of getting reasonable access to a crime scene and its environs.

“We are now calling on the Association of Chief Police Officers to adopt such guidelines in all police forces.”

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/article/160206/nuj_calls_on_police_forces_to_adopt_crime_scene_guidelines

***

The story has developed further, because now the MET Police, City of London Police and the British Transport Police, have all followed the model of the work done by us, here in Nottinghamshire

EPUK – News – New Police Guidelines agreed http://www.epuk.org/news/2006/03/guidelines2.html

NUJ Freelance – NUJ Met police guidelines http://www.londonfreelance.org/photo/guidelines.html

NUJ Freelance Apr06 – Police agree on ‘media duty’ http://www.londonfreelance.org/fl/0604met.html

NUJ Freelance May06 Doing our job [with Brian Paddick, Deputy Assistant Commissioner at the MET] http://www.londonfreelance.org/fl/0605hoc.html

Metropolitan Police policy on relations with the media http://www.met.police.uk/media

***

The following guidelines have been agreed – so far – by the Metropolitan Police, City of London Police and British Transport Police.

Guidelines for Metropolitan Police Service staff on dealing with media reporters, press photographers and television crews

I believe – and many of you believe – that a key factor in the way we work is how we treat one another and the members of the public with whom we come into contact. – Ian Blair, Commissioner

We will build trust by listening and responding. Be accessible and approachable. Build relationships. Encourage others to challenge and get involved.’ – Met statement Our values

Members of the media are not only members of the public; they can influence the way the Metropolitan Police Service is portrayed. It is important that we build good relationships with them, even when the circumstances are difficult. They have a duty to report many of those things that we have to deal with – crime, demonstrations, accidents, major events and incidents. This guide is designed to help you take the appropriate action when you have to deal with members of the media.

1. Members of the media have a duty to report from the scene of many of the incidents we have to deal with. We should actively help them carry out their responsibilities provided they do not interfere with ours.

2. Where it is necessary to put cordons in place, it is much better to provide the media with a good vantage point from which they can operate rather than to exclude them, otherwise they may try to get around the cordons and interfere with police operations. Providing an area for members of the media does not exclude them from operating from other areas to which the general public have access.

3. Members of the media have a duty to take photographs and film incidents and we have no legal power or moral responsibility to prevent or restrict what they record. It is a matter for their editors to control what is published or broadcast, not the police. Once images are recorded, we have no power to delete or confiscate them without a court order, even if we think they contain damaging or useful evidence.

4. If someone who is distressed or bereaved asks for police to intervene to prevent members of the media filming or photographing them, we may pass on their request but we have no power to prevent or restrict media activity. If they are trespassing on private property, the person who owns or controls the premises may eject them and may ask for your help in preventing a breach of the peace while they do so. The media have their own rules of conduct and complaints procedures if members of the public object.

5. To help you identify genuine members of the media, they carry identification, which they will produce to you on request. An example of the UK Press Card is shown [on the paper guidelines].

6. Members of the media do not need a permit to photograph or film in public places.

7. To enter private property while accompanying police, the media must obtain permission, which must be recorded, from the person who owns or is in control the premises. We cannot give or deny permission to members of the media to enter private premises whether the premises are directly involved in the police operation or not. This is a matter between the person who owns or is in control the premises and the members of the media.

8. Giving members of the media access to incident scenes is a matter for the Senior Investigating Officer. The gathering of evidence and forensic retrieval make access unlikely in the early stages and this should be explained to members of the media. Requests for access should be passed to the Senior Investigating Officer who should allow access in appropriate cases as soon as practicable.

9. Advice and assistance in dealing with members of the media is available 24 hours a day via the Press Bureau at New Scotland Yard.

See the story announcing them

http://www.londonfreelance.org/fl/0604met.html

the subsequent London Freelance Branch debate at the House of Commons.

http://www.londonfreelance.org/fl/0605hoc.html

Posted in . | Leave a comment

Wiltshire Police – Operation Hartley

06/03/2006 – Operation Hartley targets would-be ravers in the south west

Wiltshire Police is again participating in a south west regional operation and is warning people not to try and set up illegal raves.

The south west is considered to be one of a number of susceptible areas in the UK for illegal raves and the five south west region police forces – Wiltshire, Avon & Somerset, Devon & Cornwall, Dorset and Gloucestershire – are working together to combat them by proactively targeting organisers of events in an intelligence-led manner.

The operation will run throughout the coming months and will also take into account the Solstice celebrations in June, where large numbers of people are expected to visit the region. Because Glastonbury Festival is not being held this year, it is anticipated that there will be attempts to stage some ‘events’ instead and people may gather illegally to try and achieve this.

Wiltshire Police works very closely with English Heritage and other agencies during the Solstice period to ensure the environment around Stonehenge is protected from unlawful activities and that the movement of traffic along one of the south west’s busiest trunk roads is not impeded. The type of work undertaken by Operation Hartley allows police officers to be better informed and therefore more effective in their operational enforcement.

The public can also assist the police in their efforts to deal with this problem by reporting any suspicious activity around open land or disused buildings by either contacting Wiltshire Police on 0845 408 7000 or by contacting Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555 111.

http://www.wiltshire.police.uk/news/newsview.asp?id=1043

Posted in . | Leave a comment

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE POLICE GUIDELINES FOR THE POLICE AND MEDIA AT INCIDENTS



Reader will know of some my adventures with the police, when covering events as a photographer. Have just finished nearly 18months work, in getting talks going between the police and the NUJ. This has resulted in a set of guidelines for behaviour.

So glad to have been a contribution to this. Now, we have to get them addopted around the rest of the country

***

1. The media has a legitimate role to play in informing the public and they will attend the scene of incidents. The presence of a photographer or reporter at an incident does not of itself constitute any unlawful obstruction or interference.

2. Journalists need to collect information about an incident as quickly as possible. Some of this information may seem irrelevant, unimportant or improper to an officer. However, as long as the journalist does not break the law, or interfere with an investigation, or cross a cordon, the police officer should not impede the reporter. Journalists who break the law will be dealt with in the same manner as any other offender.

3. A crime scene remains closed to the media whilst evidence is being gathered and detailed forensic examinations take place. The reasons for denial of access should be explained to the journalist and access granted as soon as possible with permission from the Senior Investigating Officer.

4. Journalists have the right to photograph and report events that occur on public property. The police may invite journalists on to private property where an event of public interest has occurred and they have the permission of the owner. They should enter peacefully and not cause any physical damage or attempt to alter any details for photographic purposes. The rights of an owner of private property should be respected and may lead to journalists being asked to leave. If the owner of the property does not give permission then any attempt to gain access would be trespass.

5. Any journalist should be able to show relevant media identification if asked. At the scene of an incident this identification should be visible at all times.

6. Police officers should not restrict journalists from taking pictures or asking questions of other parties, even though the officer may disagree with the journalist’s purpose. It is not a police officer’s role to be the arbiter of good taste and decency. It is an editor’s role to decide what to use.

7. Police officers do not have the authority to prevent a person taking a photograph or to confiscate cameras or film, and such conduct could result in criminal, civil or diciplinary action.

8. In the event of a distressed or bereaved individual making a specific request for the media to leave them in peace the officer should pass this information on to the journalist. However, this is advice on which journalists and their editors must base their own decisions. If the situation becomes an identifiable Breach of the Peace then journalists, as any other citizen, have a duty to disperse if asked to do so.

9. Journalists should not park their vehicles in a way that will obstruct other traffic or hamper emergency vehicles or officers carrying out their lawful duty.

***

These guidelines have beenn sanctioned by Chief Constable Steve Green and the National Union of Journalists.

If you would like more information or advice on a specific issue please call Nottinghamshire Police Corporate Communications on 0115 967 2080

********

this is from my Indymedia FOI post at:

http://indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/nottinghamshire/2005/10/325499.html?c=on#c132287

Police treatment of photographers at incidents

Using the Freedom of Information Act myself, I had to compose a report on my recent adventures, and have posted it up on a couple of my professional NUJ lists.

So, Having taken the trouble to explain this process to fellow photographers, I thought I might share it with you lot also, since police / Indymedia relations at incidents are just as bad. What might get done for change for ‘properly accredited photographers’, may have influence on ‘ordinary photographers’ and ‘us lot’, if I get some the changes I’m pushing for.

So here you are, for your information also. Please check out the story, recounted on these posts:

[Imc-notts-features] Tash on the police http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-notts-features/2005-October/1011-m8.html

[Imc-uk-features] Police treatment of photographers at incidents http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2005-October/1013-iy.html

Thus, I may have had an effect on some of the issue of concern to me. I hope you see that it may be useful to you, in pursuit of gathering evidence to argue for your interests also …..

***

and, there is now further progress …….

***

From the NUJ NOTTINGHAM BRANCH

This will be our final meeting before the Union’s annual conference, which decides on NUJ policy for the forthcoming year. The Nottingham Branch has much to contribute to the various debates, thanks to your continued support of our activities.

And… our new police/media guidelines have been attracting national interest in the Press Gazette…

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/article/160206/nuj_calls_on_police_forces_to_adopt_crime_scene_guidelines

Once again, thanks to the hard work of all Branch members who have been instrumental in getting these sorted. Our next task is to get similar guidlelines adopted in all police forces across England and Wales. Already, the NUJ is in talks with the Met, which is a great step forward.

We hope to see you at the Branch Meeting.

***

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/article/160206/nuj_calls_on_police_forces_to_adopt_crime_scene_guidelines

NUJ calls on police forces to adopt crime scene guidelines

Published: Thursday, February 16, 2006

By Jon Slattery

New guidelines for police and journalists at crime and accident scenes and other incidents have been drawn up by Nottinghamshire Police and the NUJ.

It’s hoped that they will help prevent potential conflicts between police and journalists. The NUJ wants other forces across the country to adopt the new agreement.

The nine-point guide — contained in a pocket-sized card — has been distributed to all Nottinghamshire Police personnel and NUJ members in the broadcasting, print, PR, photography and freelance sectors.

The guidelines say that “the media has a legitimate role to play in informing the public… the presence of a photographer or reporter at the incident does not itself constitute unlawful obstruction or interference.”

They also state: “Journalists need to collect information about an incident as quickly as possible. Some of this information may seem irrelevant, unimportant or improper to an officer.

However, as long as the journalist does not break the law, or interfere with an investigation, or cross a cordon, the police officer should not impede the reporter. Journalists who break the law will be dealt with in the same manner as any other offender.”

The guidelines say that police officers should not restrict journalists from taking pictures or asking questions of other parties, even though the officer may disagree with the journalist’s purpose.

NUJ Nottingham branch secretary Kevin Stanley said: “We have had countless reports in the past of police officers being at the very least unhelpful to our members, and at worst obstructing them in their job of getting reasonable access to a crime scene and its environs.

“We are now calling on the Association of Chief Police Officers to adopt such guidelines in all police forces.”

***

Posted in . | Leave a comment

Photoshop’d slide show

I have uploaded a slide show – video up to Google Video for the first time. Please check it out [click here] ….. This is of course, in addition to many others, available for view on http://tash.dns2go.com

A selection from my main photographic work, after i’ve messed with em in photoshop, and arranged to some chunes

Posted in . | Leave a comment

Journalists Warn of Threats to Press Freedom in European Union Debate over anti-Terrorism Policy

http://www.ifj.org/default.asp?Index=3434&Language=EN

The European Federation of Journalists today warned that proposals from the European Commission to bring the role of journalists into its anti-terrorism strategies are reinforcing concerns of news people that politicians want to manipulate media content.

In a letter to Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the European Commission, who is in charge of developing anti-terrorist policy, the EFJ says that suggestions about introducing a code of conduct or establishing guidelines for journalists reporting terrorism issues smacks of attempts to interfere in the work of journalists.

“We recognise the European Union’s desire to promote co-operation in the fight against crimes of violence and we welcome preventative measures that will improve levels of public security and which will bring those responsible for terrorism to justice,” says Aidan White, EFJ General Secretary in the letter to Mr Frattini. “But we believe this must be achieved without compromising the cardinal principles of journalism or the fundamental right to free expression in democratic society.”

The EFJ is particularly worried by the Commission Communication issued on September 21st to the Parliament and the Council Terrorist Recruitment: addressing the factors contributing to violent radicalisation, which discusses the problem of journalism, broadcast media and the Internet “disseminating propaganda” and giving expression to “terrorist views and organisations.”

“Journalists are particularly concerned by statements in the Communication that media should change the way they report terrorist events and that it may be beneficial for some code of conduct or other form of guidance to be adopted for media in this area,” says the EFJ.

The EFJ argues that as part of their professional work, journalists need access to a wide range of relevant sources and often they find themselves in contact with people connected to fringe organisations with political objectives. “This is an essential part of the architecture of investigative and professional journalism,” said White.

“It would be appalling for the European Union to seek to suspend or restrain in any way the vital rights of citizens and media professionals through actions which may limit freedom of the press or free journalism. The only winners in such a process would be the enemies of democracy who seek to promote hatred and discord in settled democracies by their acts of violence,” he said.

EFJ leaders are seeking an urgent meeting with Mr Frattini to discuss these fears and the possibility of confidence-building measures in order to support, says the EFJ, “a confident, professional and vigorous journalistic environment in which the pressing issues of the day – security and public safety among them – can be properly reported without any need to interfere in the work of journalists”

Further information: + 32 2 235 22 00
The European Federation of Journalists represents over 250,000 journalists in more than 40 countries

Posted in . | Leave a comment

ID card scanning system riddled with errors

Hi-tech equipment could misidentify one in 1,000 people, say experts

By Marie Woolf, Francis Elliott and Sophie Goodchild
The Indpeendent on Sunday, 16 October 2005

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article320003.ece

One in 1,000 people could be inaccurately identified by the hi-tech scans
being planned for national ID cards, experts have warned.

The Government is planning to use face, iris and fingerprint scans to identify
people on ID cards. But studies have found that being scanned in the wrong
type of light or in shadow could lead to an inaccurate ID, because biometric
technology is flawed.

Internal reports for the Government warned that manual labourers whose
fingertips are worn or nicked, could find their fingerprints are not
recognised. Men who go bald risk being identified as someone else, experts
say. Pianists, guitarists and typists – whose fingerprints can be worn down –
could also face inaccurate readings.

Government trials have found that the biometrics of black, elderly and
disabled people have a higher chance of being incorrectly matched against
their true ID. People with eye problems also have a relatively high chance of
inaccurate identification.

Fingerprint systems can make errors in the identification of one in 100,000
people, while facial recognition scans have falsely identified one in 1,000
individuals.

Qinetiq, the defence technology company that advises the Government, has
warned that biometrics now being used to identify people on a small scale –
such as people entering football grounds, office buildings or shopping malls
– – may be insufficient for a national database of up to 64 million people.

The company, which develops and assesses biometrics, says urgent development
work needs to be done before ID cards are rolled out in 2008. It said a
biometric scan in the United States failed because it concluded a man who
went bald and had a wrinkled forehead had an upside-down face.

On Tuesday, the Government is expected to face a rebellion by MPs when the
Commons votes on the ID cards Bill. Around 20 Labour MPs are expected to vote
with the Tories and Liberal Democrats against the proposals.

Tomorrow, the Government will hold a “road-show” in the Home Office to
demonstrate that the biometric scans work. Sources close to Charles Clarke,
the Home Secretary, said the tour of the technology around the country had
found little public resistance to biometrics. The Government believes that
using a combination of three scans will cut down the risk of inaccurate
recognition.

An internal government report, prepared for the Home Office by the consultants
Amtec, warned in May 2003 that “no biometric system can ever be 100 per cent
accurate”. The study identified serious flaws in the technology and said they
may not be accepted by the population.

“All biometrics will face some acceptance problems to some degree. Some of the
general population do not have the body part (or sufficient quality of the
body part) required for measuring any one biometric except face,” he said.
“Some face-recognition techniques are exposed to instability, in particular
because of some people’s voluntary change of appearance, the effects of
ageing, and differences in illumination between environments.”

Why the bald and pianists may fail test

* A bald man with a wrinkled forehead fooled the technology into thinking his
face was upside down.

* Manual labourers, pianists, guitarists and people who type a lot can fail
scans because their fingerprints are worn down.

* Disabled people have a higher than normal rate of misidentification, as do
the elderly and black people.

* People with eye problems more often fail iris scans.

* Accident victims risk failing biometric scans if their physical
characteristics change; identical twins can be muddled up because they look
too similar.

* Being photographed then scanned in a different light can cause
misidentification.

Posted in . | Leave a comment

Drivers face 24-hour spy cameras

Fury over ‘attack on liberties’ as Newcastle pioneers a tracking scheme that could catch on

Lorna Martin
Sunday October 16, 2005
The Observer

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1593204,00.html

A network of hi-tech cameras capable of tracking the movements of every car could become a feature of cities across Britain. The North East is set to become the first region to introduce a controversial system which automatically records information about every vehicle passing through Newcastle and the surrounding area.

The scheme, which has provoked a heated debate with critics saying it smacks of Big Brother tactics and raises questions about individual freedom, could give a glimpse into the future of driving in Britain.

Under the plans, automatic number plate recognition cameras, similar to those now used by police to trace the 8.5 million cars which are untaxed, uninsured or suspected to be involved in criminal or terrorist activity, would be situated throughout Tyne and Wear and administered by the local council. Other local authorities are understood to be considering introducing similar systems.

The aim of the £1million Newcastle scheme, unveiled last week, is to gather information about the frequency and distance of journeys made by drivers in the area and to explore the possibility of road user charging.

‘When a car enters the network, the camera records the number plate, and then when the car shows up somewhere else on the network it cancels itself out,’ said Greg Stone, the council’s executive member for transport. ‘It means we can get a picture of how many people are doing very short journeys.’

He insisted identifying information on motorists would not be stored. ‘We are not tracking identity. We are simply tracking vehicles to establish journey patterns.’

But critics of congestion charging warned a number-plate logging system was a step closer to a fully-fledged road-pricing network. They also expressed concerns about infringements of individual privacy.

Martin Callanan, the MEP for North East England, said there were huge implications for civil liberties: ‘This is a huge intrusion by the state into people’s everyday lives, and it is all being done by stealth.

‘My main concern is that this system is, in effect, recording where everybody has been in their car in Tyneside at any time of the day or night. This information will be stored on a local council computer, and I fear we are a short step away from when that is linked to the DVLA system and the council will know where every individual person is, day or night. There are huge civil liberty implications.’

His concerns were echoed by many drivers in the city. George Naisbitt, the managing director of a taxi company, said politicians were ‘hell-bent’ on driving people out of their cars and on to public transport.

‘They are making it as difficult as possible for drivers to get into the town. The government is trying desperately to get the British public to give up their cars. But I don’t think they realise it is a task akin to un-inventing the wheel. They are living on cloud-cuckoo land if they think people are going to leave their cars at home and stand in a queue for a bus or a train or a metro that does not come on time,’ said Naisbitt.

He had no problem with police CCTV cameras which ringed the city centre. ‘They serve a useful purpose: fighting and tackling crime. But this new scheme is just about monitoring private individuals in their cars.’

Neil Quinn, 23, a metallurgist, said he objected to the idea of his movements being monitored: ‘I feel you can’t do anything on the road without people knowing about it. It feels like an invasion of privacy. You get into your car to get away from things.’

Despite their concerns, motoring organisations said it was inevitable that more CCTV cameras would crop up across Britain in the future.

Kevin Delaney, an RAC road safety adviser, said there would be much more monitoring and control of drivers in the years ahead.

‘Much of it will be benign. Drivers are prepared to trade a bit of privacy to be able to know the shortest route from A to B. The idea of all these hi-tech cameras and such close monitoring takes a bit of getting used to. In 20 or 30 years, people will wake up and book a slot on the M1. This monitoring system is the first step.’

Posted in . | Leave a comment

Photographers take militant stance

British Journal of Photography
5 October 2005

http://db.riskwaters.com/public/showPage.html?page=299338

Walter Wolfgang wasn’t the only Labour Party conference visitor to make an unexpected exit last week. Diane Smyth tells why photographers staged their own walkout

Accredited photographers at last week’s Labour Party conference were forced to take direct action to ensure that all 47 got access to the floor during the Prime Minister’s speech.

The photographers, most of whom had applied for accreditation months before the conference, were told four hours before the speech that only 30 floor passes would be handed out for Tony Blair’s slot, and no access would be given to the balcony in the conference room. The photographers were invited to put their names on a list in the pressroom, but when the passes were handed out they found that the 17 excluded were freelancers and local press photographers.

‘When I went up to get my pass, I was told, “if you’re name’s not on the list, you’re not getting in”,’ Richard Pohle told BJP. ‘Then when I said I was with The Times, I was told that we would only get one (between two photographers). It kept changing and changing, until eventually they would only let the big publications in and people working on papers like the Brighton Argus were left out.’

Unhappy with what they saw as this unfair distribution of passes, the photographers decided to refuse to take any photographs at all unless everyone got passes. Getty Images staffer Peter Macdiarmid went into the conference hall to get the photographers then shooting Home Secretary Charles Clarke’s speech, and the mass walk-out that ensued forced a meeting between the photographers, the Labour Party press office and the conference floor manager.

‘All the photographers came out of the back of the conference centre and we were saying that we would all put our cameras on the floor together and have a photograph of us with our cameras down,’ says Daily Telegraph photographer Eddie Mulholland. ‘Then a press officer came out and said, “Okay, everyone can have access to the floor and balcony”.’

‘Negotiating was getting us nowhere so all the photographers got together,’ says Macdiarmid. ‘It was amazing to see everyone stick together. It doesn’t always happen, but everyone was quite happy with the situation.’

The photographers conceded that the floor was busy for Blair’s speech, but were not convinced by suggestions that the party press office needed to restrict passes for health and safety reasons.

‘We were all allowed on the floor to photograph Gordon Brown the day before,’ pointed out Macdiarmid. ‘There were slightly more photographers on the floor for Blair and it was tight but we managed. We’re used to working in close quarters.’

Macdiarmid added that if space were restricted, it would have been fairer to ensure that at least one photographer from each paper had a pass, instead of giving national papers all the passes they wanted at the expense of freelancers and local newspaper photographers. And John Toner, freelance organiser at the National Union of Journalists, put it more starkly still, stating: ‘There is no justification – if they are short on space, they need a bigger venue.

‘It’s scandalous,’ he added. ‘We will be taking the issue up with the Labour party as soon as we can. We want to ensure that this doesn’t happen again.’

BJP contacted the Labour Party conference for comment, but none was forthcoming as the magazine went to press.

– Meanwhile, outside the conference, police officers stopped both Austin Mitchell, Labour MP and chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Photography Group, and Jeff Moore, chairman of the British Press Photographers’ Association, from taking pictures.

Mitchell’s photographs of the conference were deleted from his camera altogether, while Moore was given a stop and search notice. ‘I wasn’t actually trying to take any photographs, I was just standing outside the conference centre with my camera,’ says Moore. ‘A police officer came up to me and said: “You’re not allowed to take any pictures here. Tony Blair doesn’t like pictures being taken of the conference in progress or of the Grand Hotel.” ‘I replied: “Oh really, which law is that under?” She didn’t admit she was wrong, and she eventually gave me a stop and search form, giving her grounds for interview as “taking photographs of the conference” – which I wasn’t.

‘The BPPA has regular meetings with Bob Cox, the Met’s chief press officer about better press/police relations. Things were going well until 07 July, but they are now as bad as I have ever seen them.’

http://db.riskwaters.com/public/showPage.html?page=299338

Posted in . | Leave a comment

‘Indy’ Buildings and Social / Resource Spaces

Occupy, Resist, Create!

Squatting :: Some Current Advice

http://indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/nottinghamshire/2005/08/320446.html

Cambridge :: Squatted Social Centre

http://indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/cambridge/2005/08/320307.html

Birmingham :: Nursery Social Centre

http://indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/birmingham/2005/09/324646.html

Sheffield :: Matilda

http://wiki.sheffieldsocialforum.org.uk/MATILDA

Nottingham :: New Squatting Project

http://indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/nottinghamshire/2005/08/321108.html

http://indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/nottinghamshire/2005/08/321569.html

http://indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/nottinghamshire/2005/08/321800.html

***********

and, on ecology

EcoWorks: Straw Bale work on “eco-building” in St.Anns :: Part 1

http://indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/nottinghamshire/2005/08/321023.html

EcoWorks: Straw Bale work on “eco-building” in St.Anns :: Part 2

http://indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/nottinghamshire/2005/08/321341.html

EcoWorks: Straw Bale work on “eco-building” in St.Anns :: Part 3

http://indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/nottinghamshire/2005/08/321520.html

EcoWorks: Straw Bale work on “eco-building” in St.Anns :: Part 4

http://indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/nottinghamshire/2005/09/323670.html

EcoWorks: Straw Bale work on “eco-building” in St.Anns :: Part 5

http://indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/nottinghamshire/2005/09/323739.html

Posted in . | Leave a comment

Our internet secrets stored for decades

Privacy groups want the law changed to stop Google using, or divulging to outside agencies, the vast amount of personal data it has access to. By Conal Walsh

Sunday October 2, 2005
The Observer

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1582719,00.html

Google took a further step away from its folksy image when it hired its first professional lobbyist in Washington earlier this year. But it turned out to be a timely move. The world’s biggest search engine has been under attack on many fronts in 2005 – and its activities have spawned a cottage industry of Google critics, who complain above all that the company’s dramatic rise to prominence is a threat to our privacy.
Much protest focuses on the company’s use of ‘cookies’ – pieces of programming code – which Google plants on your computer’s hard drive when you use its service.

The cookies enable Google to keep a record of your web-searching history. They don’t expire until 2038, meaning that potentially sensitive information on your interests and peccadilloes could be stored for upwards of 30 years. It is sobering to think what fraudsters, identity thieves, blackmailers or government snoopers could do with this information if they got access to it.

Privacy groups are up in arms. ‘We need to re-evaluate the role of big search engines, email portals, and all the rest of it,’ says Daniel Brandt, of the website Google Watch.

‘They all track everything. Google was the first to do it, arrogantly and without any apologies; now everyone assumes that if Google does it, they can do it too.’

Lauren Weinstein, founder of the US-based People for Internet Responsibility, says out-of-date privacy laws fail to capture the information-gathering powers of youthful but powerful new media companies.

‘The relevant laws are generally so weak – if they exist at all – that it’s difficult to file complaints when you can’t find out what data they’re keeping and how they are using it,’ says Weinstein.

Google says these fears are unfounded, that it respects privacy and keeps strictly within relevant privacy laws. Personal data are logged on computer files but ‘no humans’ access it, says the company; safeguards are in place to prevent employees from examining traffic data without special permission from senior managers. Nor is personal information shared with outsiders. All Google’s records are impenetrable to hackers.

Besides, say Google devotees, open access and the empowerment of the individual are central to the whole philosophy of the company; it would never seek to misuse or betray its users’ secrets.

Life, though, can be complicated. In repressive countries such as China, Google and other portals have little choice but to accommodate the authorities, which regularly censor the internet and spy on users.

In the US, Google has declined to say how often it responds to requests for information from America’s intelligence and law enforcement agencies. And there are concerns that what Google is building with its data-retention operation is a vast marketing database, which one day could be exploited ruthlessly.

Simmering discontent turned into open confrontation earlier this year when Google launched Gmail, a free email service designed to compete with Yahoo and Microsoft’s Hotmail.

To ordinary punters, the great advantage of Gmail was the enormous two gigabytes of storage space it offered, enabling users to keep all their old messages. But Google planned to make the service pay by scanning customers’ emails for keywords in order to send them targeted advertisements – a flagrant breach of privacy, according to opponents.

The Consumer Federation of America demanded that Google rethink the scheme, while California politician Liz Figueroa called for changes in the law to protect users’ ‘most intimate and private email thoughts’. The London-based campaigners Privacy International filed complaints with data protection agencies in several countries, including Britain.

The UK Information Commissioner took no action after consulting with Google, but campaigners argue that government bodies operating with a small staff and obsolete laws are no match for a technology superpower like Google, which is expanding at an almost exponential rate and continues to innovate in its use of personal data.

In claims denied by Google, Privacy International’s Simon Davies asserts that there is ‘an absence of contractual commitment to the security of data’ and ‘fundamental problems in achieving lawful customer consent’.

For now, campaigners may have to console themselves with a story of the biter bit. Google’s chief executive, Eric Schmidt, was reportedly enraged this month when an online newspaper published his address and other personal details – having found them on Google.

Posted in . | Leave a comment

Big Brother is watching you

Google not only gathers vast amounts of personal data, it aspires to global domination – and that’s creepy, writes John Naughton

Sunday October 2, 2005
The Observer

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1582721,00.html

A few months ago Bill Gates let slip an interesting thought about Google in an interview. It reminded him, he said, of Microsoft in its honeymoon period – ie. the decade 1985-95. This is the first time in recorded history that Gates has dignified a competitor by actually naming it in public: generally, he speaks only in paranoid generalities. But the Microsoft chairman knows trouble when he sees it, and Google does indeed pose a long-term threat to his profitable monopoly.
That’s par for the course in the capitalist jungle. A more important question is whether Google spells trouble for the rest of us in the long run. And the answer to that could well be yes.

To understand why, we need to look back. It may be hard to credit it now, but Microsoft was once a cheeky start-up, run by college dropouts with long hair and a penchant for fast cars. It was founded at a time when the fledgling personal computer business was a labyrinth of incompatible hardware and software systems. In 1981, IBM effectively defined a de-facto hardware standard; and its erstwhile partner Microsoft defined the software standard by providing the operating system for the new, accountant-friendly IBM PC. Thus was order brought to an unruly industry. And thus was the foundation laid of Microsoft’s subsequent prosperity – and its monopoly on desktop software.

We all know the rest of the story. Microsoft has grown and grown, to the point where its monopoly lock on desktop software makes it impossible for an upstart to supplant it: the world’s organisations are so locked into the Microsoft Way that they cannot contemplate moving to a different operating system, even if it is cheaper or technically superior.

Yet, strangely, it would be wrong to conclude from this that Microsoft’s position is unassailable. Granted, it has a stranglehold on the PC platform, and anyone who tries to compete on that territory is doomed to lose. The significance of Google’s challenge is that it hasn’t chosen to fight on that ground. Instead, it seeks to make the platform irrelevant.

And it’s doing it. Here’s an illustration. Ask any random audience of computer users the following questions. Who uses Microsoft software? (All hands go up.) Who uses open source software? (No hands.) Who uses Google? (All hands go up). ‘Well’, you say, ‘that’s a funny thing because you’re all users of open source software: Google runs on Linux.’ After the rueful laughter has died away, ponder on what that means. People want a particular computing service (in this case search), and don’t really care what platform it’s delivered on.

Since its inception in 1999, Google has focused almost exclusively on providing services that are platform-independent in this way. Its search engine can be accessed from any browser. Ditto Google Groups, Google Images, Google News, Froogle, Blogger, Google Mail, Google Talk and Google Maps. A few of its offerings (notably Google Earth, Desktop Search and Picasa, a neat program for handling and organising digital photographs) are written specifically to run under Microsoft Windows, but the most heavily used services are all independent of operating systems and hardware. The company has taken Scott McNealy’s aphorism – ‘the network is the computer’ – and turned it into reality.

All of which is bad news for Mr Gates, whose prosperity is based on the proposition that the platform is the computer. But is it good news for the rest of us? Google’s most intensively used services are accessed via the net, so all the data involved flows through Google’s servers. And since these data are often fragments of intensely personal information – email, web clickstreams, instant messages, VoIP conversations – a single company is in a position to know more about each one of us than anyone would have thought possible even a decade ago.

Consider Gmail, Google’s web-mail service. This provides two gigabytes of storage to each subscriber – enough to ensure that you never again have to delete a message. The flipside is that your messages reside forever on a Google server. What’s more, Gmail is free because it is funded by advertising: Google’s software scans every email, identifies key phrases, and puts what it regards as relevant ads on the right-hand side of the screen.

If you think that’s creepy, you’re right. Google’s response is that the messages aren’t actually ‘read’, that it’s just a process akin to the one in which email messages are scanned by spam-blocking software. But that’s disingenuous, because the ads selected for display are logged (they have to be, so that advertisers can be billed) and those logs will inevitably reveal something of the context, if not the content, of the scanned messages. Anyone who uses Gmail is therefore sacrificing a degree of privacy compared with someone who uses a conventional email service. That’s why privacy and civil liberties groups have attacked Gmail on the grounds that it violates the trust of email service users – in particular non-Gmail users who send messages to Gmail subscribers. They point out that scanning creates lower expectations of privacy in the email medium and so establishes a potentially dangerous precedent.

Google’s apparently unstoppable momentum is beginning to raise alarm bells across an industry that hitherto admired the company’s cheeky, upstart ethos and the brilliance of its technology. This, after all, was an outfit that declared in its prospectus that its motto would be ‘Don’t do evil’. The implicit message from the co-founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, was: ‘We’re basically good guys. You can trust us.’ But that was then, and this is now, when Google has evolved into a multi-billion dollar corporation with aspirations to global domination. Its corporate mission, remember, is ‘to organise the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful’. And when these guys say ‘world’, they mean it.

So there’s a strong possibility that Google will indeed turn out to be Bill Gates’s worst nightmare, transforming his grip on the PC platform into a wasting asset. But the corollary of that is a world in which millions – perhaps billions – of people will become users of Google services, and that the company will become custodians of their most intimate data. The day will come when Google knows more about each of us than we realise. And knowledge is power.

Should we trust a US corporation with it? You only have to ask the question to know the answer.

Ten things you didn’t know about Google

1 It’s a calculator. Type ’25 miles in kilometres’ (without the quotes) into the search box and see what happens.

2 It can be manipulated to produce desired results. Try typing ‘miserable failure’ (without the quotes) and see what happens. This is called Googlebombing.

3 Googlewhacking is a game where you have to think of a single word which, when typed into the search box, will produce just a single ‘hit’.

4 How many pages does Google index? Answer: nobody knows. Google used to publish a number under the search box (when last seen it was over 8 billion) but it has stopped doing that – possibly because Yahoo is now claiming to index 20 billion pages.

5 It does really useful online maps of the UK. Go to maps.google.co.uk. And you can search for restaurants, churches, bars or schools just by typing the appropriate term (e.g. ‘restaurants in Bedford’) in the search box.

6 Google’s two co-founders are each worth about $7 billion. They are just 32 years old.

7 If you use Google’s webmail, the messages reside forever on a Google server.

8 Google’s power means that it knows more about each of us than any other internet search engine.

9 Google’s Gmail software scans every email, identifies key phrases, and puts what it regards as relevant ads on the right-hand side of the screen.

10 Its services, such as Google Images, Google News, Froogle, Blogger, Google Mail and Google Maps can be accessed from any browser.

Posted in . | Leave a comment

Suspicious behaviour on the tube

David Mery
Thursday September 22, 2005
The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1575532,00.html

A London underground station was evacuated and part of a main east-west line closed in a security alert on Thursday, three weeks after suicide bombers killed 52 people on the transport network, police said. (Reuters)

This Reuters story was written while the police were detaining me in Southwark tube station and the bomb squad was checking my rucksack. When they were through, the two explosive specialists walked out of the tube station smiling and commenting: “Nice laptop.” The officers offered apologies on behalf of the Metropolitan police. Then they arrested me.

7.10 pm: From my workplace in Southwark, south London, I arrange by text message to meet my girlfriend at Hanover Square. To save time – as I suppose – I decide to take the tube to Bond Street instead of my usual bus. I am wearing greenish Merrell shoes, black trousers, T-shirt, black Gap jumper, light rainproof Schott jacket and grey Top Shop cap. I am carrying a black rucksack I use as a workbag.

7.21 pm: I enter Southwark tube station, passing uniformed police by the entrance, and more police beyond the gate. I walk down to the platform, peering down at the steps as, thanks to a small eye infection, I’m wearing specs instead of my usual contact lenses. The next train is scheduled to arrive in a few minutes. As other people drift on to the platform, I sit down against the wall with my rucksack still on my back. I check for messages on my phone, then take out a printout of an article about Wikipedia from inside my jacket and begin to read.

The train enters the station. Uniformed police officers appear on the platform and surround me. They must immediately notice my French accent, still strong after living more than 12 years in London.

They handcuff me, hands behind my back, and take my rucksack out of my sight. They explain that this is for my safety, and that they are acting under the authority of the Terrorism Act. I am told that I am being stopped and searched because:

· they found my behaviour suspicious from direct observation and then from watching me on the CCTV system;

· I went into the station without looking at the police officers at the entrance or by the gates;

· two other men entered the station at about the same time as me;

· I am wearing a jacket “too warm for the season”;

· I am carrying a bulky rucksack, and kept my rucksack with me at all times;

· I looked at people coming on the platform;

· I played with my phone and then took a paper from inside my jacket.

They empty the contents of my pockets into two of their helmets, and search me, and loosen my belt. One or two trains arrive and depart, with people getting on and off. Then another train arrives and moves slowly through the station. The driver is told not to stop. After that, no more trains pass through the station.

We move away from the platform into the emergency staircase. I sit down on the (dirty) steps. The police say they can’t validate my address. I suggest they ask the security guard where I work, two streets away. We go up to the station doors, and I realise that the station is cordoned off. Two bomb squad officers pass by. One turns to me and says in a joking tone: “Nice laptop!” A police officer apologises on behalf of the Metropolitan police, and explains that we are waiting for a more senior officer to express further apologies. They take off the handcuffs and start giving me back my possessions: my purse, keys, some papers. Another police officer says that this is not proper. I am handcuffed again. A police van arrives and I am told that I will wait in the back. After about five minutes, a police officer formally arrests me.

8.53pm Arrested for suspicious behaviour and public nuisance, I am driven to Walworth police station. I am given a form about my rights. I make one correction to the police statement describing my detention: no train passed before I was stopped. I empty my pockets of the few things they had given me back at the tube station, and am searched again. My possessions are put in evidence bags. They take Polaroid photographs of me. A police officer fingerprints me and takes DNA swabs from each side of my mouth.

10:06pm I am allowed a call to my girlfriend. She is crying and keeps repeating: “I thought you were injured or had an accident, where were you, why didn’t you call me back?” I explain I’m in a police station, my phone was taken and the police wouldn’t allow me to call. She wants to come to the station. I ask her to stay at home as I don’t know how long it will take.

10:30pm I am put into an individual police cell. A plainclothes officer tells me my flat will be searched under the Terrorism Act. I request that my girlfriend be called beforehand, so that she won’t be too scared. I am asked for her phone number. I don’t know it – it is stored in my phone – so I explain it is with the officer at the desk. I later find out that they don’t call her.

12:25-1:26 am Three uniformed police officers search my flat and interview my girlfriend. They take away several mobile phones, an old IBM laptop, a BeBox tower computer (an obsolete kind of PC from the mid-1990s), a handheld GPS receiver (positioning device with maps, very useful when walking), a frequency counter (picked it up at a radio amateur junk fair because it looked interesting), a radio scanner (receives short wave radio stations), a blue RS232C breakout box (a tool I used to use when reviewing modems for computer magazines), some cables, a computer security conference leaflet, envelopes with addresses, maps of Prague and London Heathrow, some business cards, and some photographs I took for the 50 years of the Association of Computing Machinery conference. This list is from my girlfriend’s memory, or what we have noticed is missing since.

3.20am I am interviewed by a plainclothes officer. The police again read out their version of events. I make two corrections: pointing out that no train passed between my arrival on the platform and when I was detained, and that I didn’t take any wire out of my pocket. The officer suggests the computer cables I had in my rucksack could have been confused for wires. I tell him I didn’t take my rucksack off until asked by police so this is impossible. Three items I was carrying seem to be of particular interest to the officer: a small promotional booklet I got at the Screen on the Green cinema during the screening of The Assassination of Richard Nixon: a folded A4 page where I did some doodles (the police suspect it could be a map); and the active part of an old work pass where one can see the induction loop and one integrated circuit. Items from the flat the police officer asks about: the RS232C breakout box, the radio scanner and the frequency counter.

The officer explains what made them change their mind and arrest me. Apparently, on August 4, 2004, there was a firearms incident at the company where I work. The next day I find out that there had been a hoax call the previous year, apparently from a temp claiming there was an armed intruder. Some staff had also been seen photographing tube stations with a camera phone. On June 2, as part of a team-building exercise, new colleagues were supposed to photograph landmarks and try to get a picture of themselves with a policeman.

4:30am The interviewing officer releases me on bail, without requiring security. He gives me back most of the contents of my pockets, including my Oyster card and iPod, and some things from my rucksack. He says he will keep my phone. I ask if I can have the SIM card? He says no, that’s what they need, but lets me keep the whole phone. On August 31 I arrive at the police station at 9 am as required by bail, with my solicitor. A plainclothes police officer tells us they are dropping the charges, and briefly apologises. The officer in charge of the case is away so the process of clearing up my case is suspended until he signs the papers cancelling the bail and authorising the release of my possessions. The meeting lasts about five minutes.

I send letters to the data protection registrars of London Underground, Transport for London, the British Transport police and the Metropolitan police. The first three letters ask for any data, including CCTV footage, related to the incident on July 28, while the final one asks for any data they have on me. They all have 40 days to respond. On September 8 I talk to my solicitor about ensuring the police return all my possessions, giving us all the inquiry documents (which they may or may not do) and expunging police records (apparently unlikely to happen). The solicitor sends a letter to the officer in charge of my case conveying to him how upset I am.

I write to my MP about my concerns. The police decided that wearing a rain jacket, carrying a rucksack with a laptop inside, looking down at the steps while going into a tube station and checking your phone for messages just ticked too many boxes on their checklist and makes you a terrorist suspect. How many other people are not only wrongly detained but wrongly arrested every week in similar circumstances? And how many of them are also computer and telecoms enthusiasts, fitting the police’s terrorist profile so well?

While a police officer did state that my rain jacket was “too warm for the season”, could it have been instead that the weather was too cold for the season? The day before had been the coldest July day for 25 years.

Under current laws the police are not only entitled to keep my fingerprints and DNA samples, but according to my solicitor, they are also entitled to hold on to what they gather during their investigation: notepads of arresting officers, photographs, interviewing tapes and any other documents they entered in the police national computer (PNC). So even though the police consider me innocent there will remain some mention (what exactly?) in the PNC and, if they fully share their information with Interpol, in other police databases around the world as well. Isn’t a state that keeps files on innocent persons a police state? This erosion of our fundamental liberties should be of concern to us all. All men are suspect, but some men are more suspect than others (with apologies to George Orwell).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1575532,00.html

Indymedia Newswire, illustrating the spread by blogging, of this story:

http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/09/324453.html

also: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/09/324347.html

1 hr 30 min MP3 (32kbps 22,050 16bit mono)

David Mery popped into the rampART radio studio to talk to us about his terrifing night at the hands of Londons terror police…

20 megabyte download or torrent from radio.indymedia.org
CLICK HERE >> http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2005/09/6963.php

Posted in . | Leave a comment

Blog censorship handbook released

A handbook that offers advice to bloggers who want to protect themselves from recrimination and censors has been released by Reporters Without Borders.
The media watchdog said it gives people who want to set up a blog tips on how to do so, how to publicise it, as well as how to establish credibility.

It also offers advice about writing blogs from countries with tough media restrictions, such as Iran and China.

The handbook was part-funded by the French government.

Key international bloggers, experts and writers helped to produce the guidelines, such as US journalist Dan Gillmor and Canadian net censorship expert, Nart Villeneuve.

“Bloggers are often the only real journalists in countries where the mainstream media is censored or under pressure,” Reporters Without Borders said on its website.

“Only they provide independent news, at the risk of displeasing the government and sometimes courting arrest.”

Blog clamp-down

Included in the booklet, called The Handbook for Bloggers and Cyber-dissidents, is advice about how to blog anonymously, as well as how to identify the most suitable way to circumvent censorship.

It also outlines some help on developing ethical and journalistic values.

Blogs – easy-to-set-up diary-like websites – are proving increasingly popular on the net as vehicles through which people can publish their own thoughts.

Technorati, a blog search engine, tracks more than 17 million blogs globally. Blogs can be anything from personal diaries, to technology news, and political comment.

Many have turned to blogging in countries where mainstream media is restricted. But they are increasingly being targeted by strict authorities.
Iranian authorities have been clamping down on mainstream media for some time, but it has recently turned its attention to cyber-dissidents and bloggers.

Campaign groups say at least two dozen Iranian bloggers have been jailed as a result of the clamp-down. It is estimated that there are some 46,000 bloggers in the country.

The issue of blog censorship and freedom of speech is truly global, however.

In June, Microsoft’s MSN Spaces site in China started to block blog entries which used words such as “freedom”, “democracy” and “demonstration”.

Microsoft said the company abided by the laws, regulations and norms of each country in which it operates.

China recently introduced regulations that required all blog owners to register their sites with the state by 30 June.

And on Wednesday, two Chinese Singaporeans appeared in court charged with posting racist remarks about minority Malays on the net.

The blogger booklet can be downloaded from the Reporters Without Borders website in English, French, Chinese, Arabic and Persian.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/technology/4271062.stm

Posted in . | Leave a comment

a few links for those concerned on the ‘right to report’

NUJ The Freelance Sept05: More Indymedia woes

http://www.londonfreelance.org/fl/0509imc.html?i=flindex&d=2005_09

NUJ The Freelance Aug 05: More Indymedia seizures

http://www.londonfreelance.org/fl/0508imc.html

NUJ The Freelance Aug 05: Public Order at the G8

http://www.londonfreelance.org/fl/0508g8-2.html?i=flindex&d=2005_08

NUJ condemns police raid to grab BBC tapes after G8

http://www.nuj.org.uk/inner.php?docid=1075

He’s a fair cop, guv Paddick’s promise

http://www.londonfreelance.org/fl/0509met.html?i=flindex&d=2005_09

NUJ The Freelance Sept05: All’s well that ends G8?

http://media.gn.apc.org/fl/0508r2r.html

NUJ The Freelance Sept05: How the G8 is spun

http://www.londonfreelance.org/fl/0508g8-1.html?i=flindex&d=2005_08

NUJ The Freelance Aug 05: Public Order. Stay safe, stay together

http://www.londonfreelance.org/fl/0508safe.html?i=flindex&d=2005_09

Police ask for more Internet powers – ZDNet UK News

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39210631,00.htm

Association of Chief Police Officers: Media Advisory Group

http://www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Data/magguidelines.pdf

Met Police: Media Guide http://www.met.police.uk/media

Posted in . | Leave a comment