Phorms media suppression

March 5th, 2009 § 0 comments § permalink


Which? magazine, The Telegraph, Google/UK Press Association and Channel 4 have all pulled articles over Phorm Inc. (BT/Webwise) legal threats.

Which? magazine[1], an independent non-profit magazine published by the Consumers Association in the UK, carried out a survey of their readership on their responses to proposals by Phorm Inc.[2] to work in conjunction with Internet Service Providers in the UK, to use Deep Packet Inspection technology to intercept and profile their customers Internet communications to profile them in connection with behaviourally targeted advertising.

When the magazine was published Phorm Inc. immediately applied legal pressure to the Consumers Association. A follow up press release from CA notified publishers of Phorm’s objections to the survey and requested that they not publish articles based on the findings in the survey until matters had been resolved between CA and Phorm. Articles published online by the Press Association, the Daily Telegraph, and a video news report on Channel 4 were immediately taken offline, in response to this legal pressure, and a report in the online version of the Daily Mail was heavily edited to remove references to the Which? survey.


Pointing it the wrong way

February 5th, 2009 § 0 comments § permalink

Two articles I’ve come across today, both relating to the use cameras.

I’m not into photography, I like to take a good snap, but it always ends up blurred and what I think would be a great picture never quite turns out like it should.

But whatever you use a camera for, for your living or for holiday memories, the two stories below are an indication of something that will have an affect on you becoming more common:

Via Tygerland, from the British Journal of Photography (quoted in full cos it’s only short)…

A police officer has destroyed a journalist’s images of people sledging arguing that it represented an act of voyeurism.

According to the St-Albans local newspaper, The Review, reporter Alex Lewis took several photos on his mobile phone in Stanborugh Park on 03 February when he was threatened by a man who apparently thought he was photographing his children for sexual purposes.

The reporter called the police, however, an officer told him that his phone would be confiscated as evidence for a charge of ‘voyeurism’ unless he agreed to delete the images. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 introduced the offence of voyeurism.

‘The act defines a “private act”, in the context of this offence, as an act carried out in a place which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide privacy, and where the victim’s genitals, buttocks or breasts are exposed or covered only in underwear; or the victim is using a lavatory; or the person is doing a sexual act that is not of a kind ordinarily done in public’.

The Review has asked Hertfordshire Constabulary how photographs of fully clothed people in a public park are covered by the legislation. No response has been given.

It may be an over-zealous copper, but when someone slaps the Sexaul Offences Act in your face, most people are going to relent and destroy the pictures. That is the fear of the label ‘sexual offender’.

And another from the Devil himself…

From the 16th of this month, you will be liable to a maximum of ten years in prison for taking a photo of a fucking policeman.

Set to become law on 16 February, the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 amends the Terrorism Act 2000 regarding offences relating to information about members of armed forces, a member of the intelligence services, or a police officer.

The new set of rules, under section 76 of the 2008 Act and section 58A of the 2000 Act, will target anyone who ‘elicits or attempts to elicit information about (members of armed forces) … which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism’.

A person found guilty of this offence could be liable to imprisonment for up to 10 years, and to a fine.

The law is expected to increase the anti-terrorism powers used today by police officers to stop photographers, including press photographers, from taking pictures in public places.

What the fucking fuckity-fuck is this fucking shit? Ten years and a fucking fine? Fucking hell…

So, I would say that you can expect far fewer pictures showing the police kicking in protestors’ heads, wouldn’t you?

We can be watched what ever we do, where ever we go, but try and return the favour at a demo or protest…

Where Am I?

You are currently browsing entries tagged with surveillence at Sim-O.