Cameras Cameras Everywhere

There’s a programme from the US that my parents like to watch called Person of Interest. The basic gist is that the US government funded the creation of a giant supercomputer used to spy on potential terrorists which for various reasons is now being used to spot and prevent various other forms of crime. It’s an interesting show. But my blog post today is not about Person of Interest. It’s about an interesting point raised in it. Namely, does the government have a right to spy on you if this means preventing crime?

I started thinking about this when I discovered that according to the Boston Police Commissioner Edward Davies one of the things that helped the Boston police department and the FBI identify the Boston Marathon Bombers was taking a leaf out of the Metropolitan Police’s book and using video surveillance to watch footage from the scene of the bombing.

According to statistics that I have read there are some 1.85 million CCTV cameras in the UK right now. You are probably being watched all the time and not even noticing it. And that’s before we take into account private security cameras inside buildings and so on. So we can add another thousand on to that 1.85 figure.

The question therefore is how do you feel about this? I mean on the one hand, these cameras keep us safe. Every time you see a piece of grainy CCTV footage on the news, then that maybe one step nearer to the perpetrator of a crime being caught. Or security guards reviewing footage may be able to prevent a crime from being prevented by spotting something untoward.

On the other hand this does sacrifice a measure of personal privacy. In a situation foreseen by George Orwell, we are now watched, 24/7, even during those moments that we thought we were alone, when we are just quietly rocking out on our walk home or whatever. Privacy once held so dear is now gone forever. At least in public anyway.

But is it worth it? The question that the next generation must answer is which is more important. Privacy or safety? Privacy is all well and good, but if it leads to crimes going unsolved and terrorists going uncaught, then it might be worth the sacrifice. But at the same time, if being safe comes at the cost of our personal privacy, if we can’t walk down the street without being observed, is it worth it? Because what may come next maybe not only public surveillance but surveillance inside our own homes. Are we at risk of sacrificing our rights for the illusion of protection?

This is not to say that surveillance isn’t good. Clearly in the case of the Boston Bombings it was very good and very useful indeed. But at some point in the near future, we are going to have to consider whether it really is ok for Big Brother to be watching us all of the time.

 

Where there is darkness, let us bring light

I was reminded this week of the words spoken by Margaret Thatcher as she entered Downing Street for the first time. Quoting St Francis of Assisi she said that “Where there is discord, may we bring harmony. Where there is error, may we bring truth. Where there is doubt, may we bring faith. And where there is despair, may we bring hope’” However, the reason these words popped into my head had nothing to do with Lady Thatcher’s funeral this week, and everything to do with the horrendous events at the Boston Marathon this Monday just gone.

As better reporters than me have said this week, the Boston Marathon – in fact any and every marathon –is not just about running. It’s not just about proving that you can run 26 miles, though that is a factor. It’s about people coming together, to raise money and to raise awareness of causes.  It’s an occasion to have some fun, and to show that regardless of race, colour, or religion there is something that we can all share. Sadly, these very features that make a marathon so worthwhile are also the features that make it a tempting target for would be terrorists. If you are attempting to divide a nation through terror, what better way to do it than to attack a symbol of unity and togetherness?

But once again, those responsible for the attack on the Boston Marathon made the same mistake that all terrorists throughout the ages have made. They did not count on the resiliency of the human spirit. Just as in New York on 9/11 and in London on 7/7, in the midst of all the chaos people have come together and have shown that community is not that easily broken.

I’m not just talking about the members of the emergency services, who laid their lives on the line to help others, though they are important as well and deserve recognition for the work they do. I’m talking about the ordinary, everyday, unsung heroes of last Monday. Those who, upon hearing the explosions, immediately turned around and ran back so that they could help those caught up in the carnage.  Or those who despite having just run a marathon, immediately ran to the Massachusetts General Hospital in order to donate blood. In fact so many people did that that the hospital had to ask people to stop as they already had more than enough. And in the days to come I’m sure we’ll hear more such stories of heroism coming from Boston as the full story of that day gets told.

This is why terrorists will never win. Because  no matter what they do, they cannot break the human spirit. It’s tougher than anything they can throw at us.  I was also reminded of a quote from the American political drama the West Wing, given in a speech by President Bartlett (the fictional president who is the hero of the drama) following an explosion that takes place in one episode. 

“The streets of heaven are too crowded with angels tonight. They're our students and our teachers and our parents and our friends. The streets of heaven are too crowded with angels, but every time we think we have measured our capacity to meet a challenge, we look up and we're reminded that that capacity may well be limitless. This is a time for American heroes. We will do what is hard. We will achieve what is great.”

We will do what is hard. We will achieve what is great. That is why we will always win.

If you're mad, then do something.

Like most normal people with a sense of proportion, I was upset and angry with the idiots who decided to organise Thatcher death day parties. This isn’t because I’m a particular fan of Baroness Thatcher, but for the same reason I was disgusted that Americans were throwing street parties to celebrate the death of Osama Bin Laden. A murderous terrorist he may have been, but he was also a human being. Similarly whatever your feelings about Mrs Thatcher, she was a person, who deserved some respect in death.

But what also annoyed me greatly was the age of the people involved in these parties. Most of them were in their early twenties like me, and were only just being born as Mrs Thatcher’s premiership came to an end. Most of them may have some idea who Mrs Thatcher was, but only in a historical sense. They have no real idea what it was like living at the time she was Prime Minister, or what the conditions in the country were like. If you watched the news, whenever they spoke to someone who had lived through the Thatcher era, and had been adversely affected by her polices, their response was “I’m sorry for her family, but I’m not particular sad.” No cries of “Ding dong the Witch is Dead” here.

Now if these parties were motivated by something other than an opportunity for a laugh and a chance to get on the nightly news, if they were motivated by an actual interest in politics, by a belief that the country was damaged by Thatcherism and needs to change, then there’s better things they could be doing with their time than rearranging the signs outside the Ritz.

The number of young people voting or getting actively involved in the political process is going down with every election. The Lib Dems may have relied on the student vote in the last election, but that’s a very small pool of voters and getting smaller. And while I’m sure the National Union of Students is well intentioned and genuinely interested in the welfare of students, it doesn’t seem to be doing anything to counteract this trend. They have the capacity to call on a huge membership and convince them to make their opinions heard by voting rather than by smashing up windows in central London. But they aren’t. They are squandering a marvellous opportunity to do some real good.

If young people are genuinely interested in changing the world for the better, then they need to get involved in politics. Stand for a position in their student union, get involved in their local political parties, even run for their local council if they want. Get out there, make your voice heard. Make the small changes that make the world better every day. Nothing was ever changed by people assuming that someone else would do it. It was changed by people standing up and making the change happen.  

If you’re really mad, then do something.

You can’t blame Welfare for everything.

Do you remember those occasions when you were in school when one person or group of people in your class did something stupid and you all got punished for it, despite the fact that it wasn’t all of you? It felt really unfair didn’t it? Well I’m starting to get flashbacks to that as the government lines up to kick the welfare state in the aftermath of the Philpott case.

What Mick and Mairead  Philpott did was both disturbing and stupid. And very few people – even those on the left – are going to be lining up to defend Mick Philpott for using the welfare state to fund his lifestyle. But to watch Osborne, - aided by the Tories pet newspaper the Daily Mail – use this as an opportunity to try and put down the Welfare state, to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the second highest ranking member of the government, use the deaths of six children to justify his poor punishing budget, is both crass and repellent.

There are problems with the Welfare System in the UK. Nobody is saying that there are not. There are some people who see it as a meal ticket which saves them from having to do some real work, but they are not the majority. The majority of those on welfare are people who are either temporarily unemployed – and incidentally I didn’t see the government doing anything to actually increase the number of available jobs before they started slashing at welfare – or who are for one reason or another (perhaps sickness, perhaps caring for a sick relative) unable to work. Now they, rather than those who are actually responsible, are being forced to pay for the mistakes of those in banking sector

I’m not sure what has prompted the Conservative front bench to adopt such a draconian attitude towards the Welfare State. Perhaps it is the relative youth of the PM and his front bench team and a wish to quell some dangerous mumblings from the hard right of the Tory Party. What I do know, is that Cameron and Co. have done things - not least to the NHS- that not even Mrs Thatcher in her prime would have dared to do. Since its formation after the Second World War the welfare state has been the backbone of Britain, and only those intent on some form of political suicide would ever dare to tamper with it.

It’s also interesting to note the background of those behind the statements. The Prime Minister attended Eton and Oxford, and Osborne, is the heir to an Irish Baronetcy and a massive fortune. Neither of them have the slightest idea of the importance of welfare to the millions of everyday Britons.

The Government may believe that what they are doing is what is necessary for the country. But if they have any plans of still being in power after 2015 they need to understand that attacking the Welfare State is not a way to win the next election.

A Small Step Towards a Better World.

Yesterday the UN adopted the first treaty in its history designed to regulate the global arms trade. 154 countries voted in favour of it, with twenty three abstaining, and three, - Syria, Iran and North Korea – voting against. This came at the end of over a decade of hard work by various groups campaigning about this issue.

Didn’t know about it?

I’m not surprised. Not only are there lots of other things going on which all take up precious column inches, - for example the government trying to solve the country’s economic problems by punishing poor people – but also, despite all the good that the UN does, it rarely gets front page coverage. But even taking this into account the lack of attention given to the arms treaty is quite distressing.

This is a far reaching treaty that once it comes into force, probably by the end of the year, will cover virtually every form of weapon, from small arms to warships, from tanks to anti-aircraft missiles. While it won’t cover the domestic use of weapons – the Americans will have to sort that out by themselves – it will mean that every part of the arms trade from the sale of arms to the transfer of parts will be properly regulated. It will also seek to regulate the activities of arms dealers both legal and illegal.

This, I hope you understand, is a bit of a big thing.

The arms trade is a massive money maker, worth an estimated £70bn. And while this treaty won’t be a big blow to the sale of arms in an official setting, it will be a big blow to organised crime and terrorist groups who will now find it much harder to get hold of arms, even illegally. Some people may argue, (in fact some people already have) that this treaty will lead to a surge in the black market. However, now that this treaty is sorted we can get started on cracking down on the black market.

But it’s not only terrorists who have to worry but countries as well. The arms trade and its unregulated nature has been the driving force behind several wars in the last couple of decades, especially in Africa. Countries with dodgy governments will be in trouble too. As noted above, Syria was one of the three countries to vote against the treaty and with good reason. If there ever comes a day when the current Syrian regime ceases to be recognised by the world powers as the official government of Syria, then they will have a hard time laying their hands on the weaponry they need to continue the civil war.

Like I’ve said, the UN doesn’t often (in fact rarely) gets the coverage it deserves considering all the work that it does attempting to make the world a better place. But here it really has done something amazing. Thanks to this Treaty the world is one step further along the path of becoming a more peaceful and overall better place to live.