Enemies and Friends – Whistleblowing in the Internet Age

America, most of the world in fact, was rocked by another whistle-blowing scandal this week as former Central Intelligence Agency analyst Edward Snowden revealed state secrets about the snooping program Prism.

These revelations follow close on the heels of the start of Bradley Manning’s trial, the US Army private accused of handing over information to Wikileaks, and increased calls for a beefed-up ‘Snoopers Charter’ in the UK after the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby.

All of these incidents, and many others, have posed two very awkward questions. First, do whistleblowers hurt or help the cause of freedom, and second, how much privacy should the public expect in the face of global terrorism?

Both of these questions are, at best, difficult to answer or, at worst, the very definition of impossible to resolve.

Surely, if you can prevent another 9/11 or 7/7 by logging people’s internet usage a loss of privacy is a small price to pay, and whistleblowers harm this endeavour.

However, a founding principle of democracy is openness and the guaranteed freedom of its citizens and central pillars of this are innocence until guilt is proven and freedom of expression.

The first question is arguably the easier to answer, because, as many of the talking-heads have already pointed out, what whistleblowers do is wrong legally, but morally justifiable.

Manning does not deny most of the charges being brought against him and Snowden was so sure he would face prosecution, and even possible persecution because of his actions, he left the US for Hong Kong and has now gone into hiding. In fact Manning knows the best he can possibly expect is to spend the rest of his life in prison.

This clearly shows they were both aware of the crime they were committing, but blowing the whistle on organisations like the US Department of Defence or the National Security Agency is a question of ethics, not legality.

Without people willing to shed light on shady practices the public would have maybe never found out about Watergate, the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and MPs expenses, or the fraudulent and corrupt behaviour by Enron, Pfizer and UBS.

Undoubtedly, the world would be a worse place if these abuses of power and corporate greed had not been exposed and each specific case led to improvements being made to the system to stop them happening again, even if the fixes have not been perfect.

However, there is one point which makes the two most recent cases more significant.

Sherron Watkins, the woman who exposed the Enron scandal, committed a crime by just being aware of the false accounting at the US corporate giant, while the more recent cases are a question of threatening national security and, in Manning’s case, the very serious offence of aiding and abetting the enemy.

Essentially the question is did Manning or Snowden endanger lives through their actions?

In Manning’s case the answer is probably yes, even though his actions only proved what many people suspected, but with Snowden the question is far less tangible.

If, due to Snowden’s revelations, the US stops gathering data from mobile communications and internet records and because of this miss the opportunity to catch terrorist suspects who go on to commit an atrocity, did victims of the atrocity die because of Snowden’s actions? Where is a tort lawyer when you need one?

This brings us neatly to the second question of how much privacy people can rightfully expect in this time of global terrorism.

Of course there has hardly been a time in the UKs history when it has not been under some kind of threat, but the rise of religious and political extremists in the internet age poses unique challenges.

In the past it was impossible to monitor the search engine results of the Jacobite’s, mobile phone use of IRA members and the satnav records of the Spanish Armada, but today the most effective way of keeping tabs on potential terrorists is to see who views extremist material or reads about bomb making.

However, this raises two further issues.

Firstly, just because people view this material does not mean they are going to commit a terrorist act and going after them in such a haphazard way is comparable to claiming all readers of Fifty Shades of Grey are now into bondage.

Secondly, having extreme views is not a crime. Various political groups of the left and right hold some extreme views, but in itself this does not mean these groups should be illegal, censored or banned.

As Noam Chomsky said “If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.”

Most people would not object to known terrorist threats having their communications monitored as an intelligence gathering device, but the serious issue, ignored by all governments, is how far to take these tactics.

CCTV, for example, has been an incredibly useful tool for indentifying criminals, but an unavoidable consequence of this is the recording of all people’s movements regardless of any illegal intent.

In the same way monitoring people’s internet use will throw focus on all people who view extremist material, not just those who are encouraged by it to go on and commit violent acts.

Another important question is what is classified as extremist material.

I, like many, was shocked at the levels of racism and xenophobia expressed by my “friends” on Facebook following Lee Rigby’s murder in Woolwich, many of which included the sharing of blog posts, pictures and videos from across the internet.

A minute fraction of the people who posted this material across all social media platforms would even consider taking this standpoint to a violent level, but all of them viewed the material.

However, would we not all be shocked and appalled if we found out all of the people who posted this material were now on government watch lists because of it?

The fact of the matter is the internet does need to be, for want of a better word, policed, but the way this is done must be in line with both historic and modern views of privacy and freedom.

What has appalled people about the Prism revelations has been the secrecy with which it was carried out, indicating how the government agencies involved knew how controversial (or potentially illegal) the scheme would be.

The use of tools like covert surveillance of internet and mobile phone use need to be discussed in public and if they are not history shows these powers can end up being used in a despotic and oppressive manner.

These tactics need to be used as tools at the disposal of the intelligence services, not as the front line of counter terrorism, or the western world will have no moral authority, and they should certainly not replace other means of gathering this information which does not infringe on people’s human rights.

There is also too much information and traffic online for this to be a focused means of defence, making this more blunt tool than laser guided.

All people want to see the UK and the world free from extremist attacks on our freedom, but the way to achieve this is by not damaging the freedoms vital to democracy and the best way to achieve this is by encouraging people to have moral conviction and, if required, blow the whistle, regardless of the consequences to themselves.

For Bike’s Sake – Making Cycling Safer

Following the introduction of ‘Boris Bikes’ and the success of Team GB’s cyclists at the Olympics more and more people are taking to two wheels to get around London, but as the number of bicycles has increased so has the number of accidents.

This poses a major problem. How do you get people to leave their cars at home and make cycling safe at the same time?

Cycling should be encouraged in this country as it cuts the number of cars on the road, cut carbon emissions, encourages people to get some exercise and reduces the pressure on public transport at peak times. 

However, it is difficult to extol the virtues of pedalling if there are regular accidents and fatalities.

Surely the best way to approach this is to treat cycling in the same way we deal with sex education in schools by not encouraging people to cycle, but by encouraging people to cycle safely.

Unfortunately, one of the key problems is cyclists themselves. Large numbers of them seem to think they are Bradley Wiggins or Victoria Pendleton when, apart from the fact they ride a bicycle, they have nothing in common at all.

Cyclists also seem to have a flexible relationship with the Highway Code, regularly jumping red lights, pedestrian crossings and other road safety features. While I am not saying all cyclists do not follow the basic rules of the road the ones who do are putting themselves in very real danger by flaunting measures put in place to save lives.

What this comes down to is the fact that bicycles are the only vehicle you are allowed to drive on the road which requires no licence at all. Even 16-year-olds tearing around council estates on scooters have to demonstrate some basic road skills before being unleashed atop their 4 horsepower Vespa’s.

While the idea of making every cyclist get a license before they can go on the road is a little counterproductive there are certain measures which certainly could be introduced, some in the short term, others in the future.

The first thing to do is introduce a mandatory dress code for all cyclists. Helmet, gloves and high-visibility jackets must be worn and all bicycles must be fitted with lights which should be on at all times when being ridden.

This would ensure cyclists are at least slightly protected and most importantly more visible for other road users.

Motorcyclists are already required by law to wear a helmet and most other protective clothing comes with built in Kevlar and luminous strips to improve visibility, not to mention bikers are instructed when taking their tests to have their lights on at all times.

Unfortunately, no matter how much training they go through, lorry and bus drivers are never going to be able to see a cyclist in dark clothes on a bike without lights careering up the inside of traffic and this may at least save some lives.

This kind of regulation could be implemented overnight and could be regulated by police officers who could impose on-the-spot fines.

However, a more pressing issue is of road safety. Without forcing cyclists to take a license test before being allowed on the road it is hard to ensure the UK’s prolific peddlers have any kind of road sense at all, but the answer to this might already exist.

The cycling proficiency test has been around for many years, but unfortunately is not offered at all schools. Surely the best way to ensure all our children grow up to be safer drivers, cyclists and even pedestrians is to make road safety and cycling proficiency a mandatory requirement.

Many might be tempted to say this post is forcing all the blame for this onto the cyclists and asking for nothing to be done to improve the behaviour of car, bus and lorry drivers and the reason is this.

Every time you hear of a cyclist dying or getting badly injured on the roads it is almost always happened in the same way. They were hit by a large vehicle turning left.

This leaves many motorcyclists asking the question what were they doing on the inside line of a large vehicle turning left. One of the first things you’re are taught during compulsory basic training for a motorbike license is never do this as you will get knocked-off, neatly bringing us back to the original point of why is there no mandatory test for cyclists.

In the long-run it would also be a good idea to make sure all bicycles used on the roads are licensed and carry a number plate like a car so all riders who break the rules of the road can be pursued in the same way as speeding motorists.

The question of whether or not it is practical to introduce tests and strict licensing laws on cyclists is certainly a difficult one as it is something to be encouraged, but at the same time is very dangerous.

However, as mentioned earlier bicycles are the only vehicle you can drive on the road without a license and this fact alone speaks volumes about where the changes need to be made.

An Ode to The Iron Lady

‘To the living we owe respect, but to the dead we owe only the truth’ French author Voltaire once wrote. With this in mind is it now not time to stop romanticising about the first, and so far only, female Prime Minister?

The news of the death of Baroness Thatcher spread across the world in a very short amount of time and while her sad passing was not totally unexpected the reaction to it certainly was. All of a sudden it became unacceptable to criticise one of the most divisive political leaders just because she was no longer with us.

This is the reason this post started with the quote from Voltaire as it has long been my personal opinion if Maggie Thatcher had been a man she would have gone down as one of the worst Prime Ministers in history and is responsible for most of the problems we face today.

Her lasting legacy is of course an economic one. The modern UK economy, dominated by private companies and the financial sector, is all of Mrs Thatcher’s doing. While it is true some have benefitted from this it is harder to claim everyone has.

The privatisation of the power, utility and transport sector has resulted in inflated prices and poor service as the companies running the service aim to make them as profitable as possible.

While it is true British Gas, BT and BP had significant flaws at least they understood what they did was for the benefit of the people and not for profit. Instead what we ended up with is annual news stories about how much money Thames Water makes while providing a third-rate service.

Her savage deregulation of the financial sector may have greatly increased the power of London’s banking industry, but led directly to the problems causing the credit crunch, creating an industry obsessed with money and lacking moral guidance.

At the same time she set out to destroy the traditional manufacturing industries which had powered the UK economy for centuries and did nothing to help those made unemployed as a result. Yes, the heavy industries in mining and metals were faltering, but what happened in the aftermath was tantamount to abandonment of certain areas of the country by the government.

While many of us agree with the principles behind the trade union movement, we have to accept come the 1970s and 80s they were far too militant and overstepping its remit. However, the way to go about it was to reform the industries not to directly set-out to destroy them.

All this resulted in was inflated unemployment and economic depression in Northern England, Scotland and Wales which directly led to what we refer to today as the welfare trap and weak unions unable to stand-up for the workers they represent.

This leads us on nicely to what can be seen as the Iron Lady’s worst policy, right-to-buy.

While the idea of letting working class families buy council houses at a discount seems like a great idea you only have to scratch the surface to see how flawed the fundamental idea is.

Thanks to spending cuts local councils during the 80s were desperate to raise cash and so, when right-to-buy was introduced, almost all council housing in the UK was sold, but no additional capacity was built, the idea being this ‘housing gap’ would be filled by private landlords.

However, what actually materialised was central government spending billions over the last couple of decades paying extortionate rents to private companies to house what would have previously been council tenants.

Today low-income families (and yes, immigrants) have to be put-up in private homes as there is no low-cost or council homes available. This is why you get news stories (usually reported in the Daily Mail) complaining about how a single mother with six children lives in a mansion while lower middle-class families struggle to afford a deposit.

While we are on housing we should also take a look at the Poll Tax. This policy was designed to replace council tax, but again was not thought through at all as it rewarded one-person living in a mansion, while penalising a large family in a small house who could not afford to move somewhere larger.

Thankfully this levy did not last long in part due to rioting on the streets, but it should be remembered the Thatcher years saw some of the worst civil unrest in history.

To her supporters however, Mrs Thatcher will also be remembered for her foreign policy and most importantly the Falklands.

Her steely resolve is certainly to be admired, but 255 British servicemen lost their lives in a conflict over a strategically unimportant spit-of-land in the South Atlantic while little effort was made to deal with the underlying problem of a military dictator in Argentina.

Closer to home it would be fair to say her relationship with the European Union was frosty, something which has cost the UK and the Conservative party many problems since her departure from Downing Street, and while she made progress with China and the USSR and developed a strong relationship with America she also referred to Nelson Mandela’s ANC as a terrorist group.

What we see time and time again here is while she might have had the courage of her convictions and an ability to see unpopular policies through many have a long-lasting negative legacy.

It is true she should be respected and possibly even revered for what she stood for and for her position as the first female Prime Minister and a truly great Briton, however it is time for us to stop romanticising about her historical significance and focus on what she left behind.

I do not agree with people celebrating her death or the #danceonhergrave on Twitter, but as said at the start of this post you owe the living your respect, but after their death you owe them the truth.

A Growth Concern – Budget Review

‘It can’t be worse than last year’ was almost certainly the buzz phrase around the treasury in the run up to George Osborne’s fourth budget as Chancellor, following the so called ‘omnishambles’ of caravans, charitable donations and Cornish pasties in 2012.

While his budget has certainly not been torn apart in the same way, there has been intense speculation and assessment of the measures Osborne laid out.

The growth, debt and deficit figure were never going to make for happy reading, although the Chancellor did his best to paint them in a positive light, however, the alterations to tax and housing policy have been the main talking points (face it, we do not need the Office for Budget Responsibility to tell us how badly the economy is performing).

Osborne’s ‘Help to Buy’ scheme was this budgets flagship policy. The basic idea involves interest free loans of up to 20 percent of the value of a new house and government guarantees to underpin new mortgages to the tune of £130 billion.

The expected outcome is an increase in demand for new homes, resulting in more home building by contractors, leading to greater employment in the construction sector. However, there are certain flaws in this policy.

Essentially this idea build on the 1980s policy of ‘Right to Buy’ where council house tenants were allowed to buy homes at a huge discount, improving their credit rating and making it easier for them to get loans.

The problem was councils, in a desperate attempt to raise cash, sold almost all social housing and the private sector did not meet the demand for low cost housing. In the long term this has led to the almost weekly newspaper articles about a single mother with four children or a large immigrant family living in expensive properties at the taxpayers’ expense.

Already there have been issues raised with the policy, although the government has been keen to point out the details have not yet been decided.

The main issue seems to focus on abuse of the system. The Labour party and interest groups fear the people who will take up the scheme will be people buying second homes and buy-to-let landlords, which will not result in the require increase in demand for new housing or help first time buyers onto the property ladder.

However, there could potentially be another significant problem. The economy’s major fault at the present time is non-existent demand from consumers, the reason for this being a lack of job security meaning people are saving rather than spending. This issue is then compounded by businesses and financial institutions sitting on capital and waiting for fair economic weather before investing or loaning money.

This policy seems to assume there is zero demand in the housing market, when the fact is people want to buy homes, but just cannot afford them. The interest free element of this make almost no difference to the average first time buyer who would still have to pay a substantial deposit, which many people cannot afford due to stagnant wages.

A welcome policy could help this, with the extension of the income tax threshold to £10,000. This will be of huge benefit to low and middle income earners who will see a significant rise in their monthly pay cheques.

However, as welcome as this is, it only partially bridges the gap caused by inflation and frozen wages. It is this annoying trend which seems to continue through the rest of the budget.

The proposed 3 pence rise in fuel duty in September has been scrapped. Again, thank you George, but what good does it do when people cannot afford the petrol in the first place.

Beer duty as well will be reduced by 1 penny a pint, as if this is going to make any difference to the amount of money in people pockets or the profitability of pubs.

A National Insurance cut of £2,000 for every business, while 450,000 small firms will pay no employer NI at all. You will not hear any company owner complaining about this policy, but its small potatoes and will likely have no effect on business investment or employment rates.

An extra £15 billion in infrastructure spending by 2020, starting with £3bn in 2015/16. This is tantamount to battling an inferno with a garden hose. Many of those calling for increased capital spending are arguing for at least £15bn straight away, while £3bn will barely cover administration cost of a new project.

There are essentially two ways to go with the UK economy at the moment. Firstly large increases in capital spending to increase investment in infrastructure, support greater employment and encourage growth, or secondly massive spending cuts to rapidly reduce the deficit and debt, restoring faith in the fiscal solidity of the UK.

The overriding problem with this latest budgetary offering from George Osborne is it is neither one thing nor the other.

He came to power claiming he wanted to erase the deficit by the next election, a target he will not even get close to, and at the same time he refuses to increase capital spending to improve growth.

Regardless of whether you are a Keynesian or a Friedmanite what this economy actually needs is action in one or the other direction.

What Osborne has done is land himself in economic purgatory, where he is neither one thing nor the other, which has resulted in a stagnant economy, flat-lining growth and a steadily rising, not falling, national debt.

We all have our personal views on what Osborne should do, now we just need him to make up his mind and actually take some action one way or another.

The only conclusion it is possible to draw is Osborne suffers from the same issue as the Con-Dem coalition which, instead of taking significant long-term action, prefers to deal with an issue of the week, before it is forced into a humiliating u-turn.

Regardless of your views on the government as a whole and its handling of the economy specifically it is time for them to do what they were elected to do and show strong leadership, a quality severely lacking since it took office.