Archive for category Liberty
Updated Google privacy data: UK now “only” 2nd most snooped on
Posted by Zoe O'Connell in Internet, Liberty on 27 June 2011
A while ago, I produced a per-capita analysis of the Google privacy data showing that the UK, per citizen, is the most snooped on country – there were more requests per person in the UK to Google than any other country. More up to date data is now available, for July to December 2010, showing that the UK is no longer the most snooped on – we’ve dropped to second place. Singapore does not appear in the January to June data but no reason is indicated for this.
(Note: Previous positions in the table below are based on latest data from Google. Some countries did not have data available at the time the previous blog post was compiled, so those numbers do not match)
| Population | Previous position | Requests per Million (Jan-Jun) | Requests per Million (Jul-Dec) | |
| 1. Singapore | 5,076,700 | 5th | 20.9 | 23.2 |
| 2. United Kingdom | 62,008,049 | 1st | 40.5 | 18.7 |
| 3. France | 65,447,374 | 3rd | 28.5 | 15.6 |
| 4. Australia | 22,469,943 | 6th | 15.8 | 15.4 |
| 5. United States | 310,314,000 | 4th | 25.4 | 14.8 |
| 6. Italy | 60,402,499 | 6th | 19.9 | 13.9 |
| 7. Germany | 81,802,257 | 13th | 5.6 | 9.4 |
| 8. Brazil | 193,549,000 | 2nd | 31.5 | 9.3 |
| 9. Portugal | 10,636,888 | 10th | 6.9 | 8.6 |
| 10. Belgium | 10,839,905 | 11th | 6.5 | 7.8 |
And no real surprises in the removal requests category either as Lybia is still an order of magnitude ahead of every other country. The United States, home of free speech, drops out of the top 10 completely down to number 13 while the UK stays up at number six.
| Population | Previous position | Removals per Million (Jan-Jun) | Removals per Million (Jul-Dec) | |
| 1. Libya | 6,546,000 | 1st | 22.8 | 10.4 |
| 2. South Korea | 49,773,145 | 5th | 2.0 | 2.8 |
| 3. Germany | 81,802,257 | 2nd | 3.8 | 1.4 |
| 4. Brazil | 193,549,000 | 3rd | 3.6 | 1.4 |
| 5. Italy | 60,402,499 | 4th | 2.1 | 0.8 |
| 6. United Kingdom | 62,008,049 | 6th | 1.7 | 0.6 |
| 7. Argentina | 40,518,951 | 8th | 1.3 | 0.5 |
| 8. Switzerland | 7,866,500 | 13th | 0.6 | 0.5 |
| 9. France | 65,447,374 | 3rd | 0.5 | 0.4 |
| 10. Spain | 46,072,834 | 9th | 1.0 | 0.3 |
Illiberal conference: Blog post roundup and things you can do!
Posted by Zoe O'Connell in Liberty on 3 June 2011
In the heat of the moment yesterday, I did not explain the issue well so here’s the story. If you already know the issues, scroll down and there’s a list of things you can do to help!
West Midlands Police have imposed a “security vetting” procedure on attendees of the Liberal Democrat Autumn conference this year, which the Federal Conference Committee have (After some wrangling with WMP, it appears) agreed to. This is new and hasn’t been in place before and there has been no reason given for the increased security measures or what threat they are designed to deal with. Briefly, as I see it there are four issues:
1) Members may be barred from attending without due process. There is an established and open process for barring members from the party and it should not be left in the hands of the police.
2) Police will be keeping the information gathered indefinitely and share it with other police forces. (Yes, they’re keeping a database of political activists’s passports, NI numbers and driving licences)
3) It creates problems for various marginalised groups: Anyone under the age of 16, (No driving licence or NI number) anyone foreign who has never worked in the UK (No UK passport or NI number) and anyone transgendered or who might otherwise have ID in multiple names. (Anyone who thinks that being trans doesn’t cause problems with the police really should try it some day)
4) We can hardly defend our position on being against ID Cards if we give in to this. We’re basically admitting that the database state is required to ensure our security. I, and many others, do not believe it is necessary.
Dave Page has a post up on LibDemVoice that goes into more detail. There are also many other blog posts on the issue – here’s a random selection. (I apologise to anyone I haven’t included, there are so many – I’ll add a few more here shortly)
Caron’s Musings: My Federal Conference Dilemma – do I submit to illiberal police veto? and Episode 2: The Petition and The Letter
Spiderplant Land: Liberal Democrat Conference 2011 – The most ‘illiberal’ yet and Keep Liberal Democrat Conference Liberal
Liberal England: Do the police now decide who can attend the Liberal Democrat Conference?
Miss SB: So the problem is apparently not the poor HQ staff, but the police.
Stephen’s Liberal Journal: I may be approved, but I may not accredited #ldconf
Disgruntled Radical: Police can veto who goes to Lib Dem Conference ?!!?
Liberal Ramblings from Petersfield: Conference time and I’m not happy
Daniel Furr: The great liberal police state
Emma Brownbill: Wanted: A Fair, Free and Open Conference – for all of us.
And of course, the twitter hashtag, #ldconf.
What can be done?
Firstly, there’s a petition you can sign. More importantly, please pass this on to other members of your local party who might not otherwise see it! There’s a very active LibDem blogosphere and twitter community but it’s only a small fraction of the party as a whole.
Secondly, there are T-Shirts to wear at conference itself, featuring the design above designed by Sarah Brown.
And thirdly, there’s a letter a few of us put together that you can circulate and hopefully get your local party to pass on up the chain. The more grass roots pressure there is on this, the more chance there is of the FCC going back and looking at the security arrangements again:
Dear colleague,
We wish to make clear our disappointment at the way in which the registration process for the Liberal Democrat Conference in Birmingham is being carried out as agreed by the Federal Conference Committee in conjunction with West Midlands Police.
The new registration process requires that those who wish to attend conference provide Greater Manchester Police (on behalf of West Midlands Police) with their personal information such as passport and NI numbers.
As a liberal party with a strong history and record of protecting civil liberties, we are gravely concerned that such an illiberal registration process has been allowed to take place by the party’s Federal Conference Committee without direct consultation with those directly affected, i.e. members.
We also wish to make clear our disappointment and disagreement with the declaration that “These details will be passed onto the police to carry out their own accreditation procedures.” For a party which has consistently fought to protect and re-instate civil liberties and freedoms, we cannot support a decision which removes our right to keep our private information private.
We strongly disagree with the decision that West Midlands Police have the power to disallow any member of the Liberal Democrats from attending conference should they wish to do so. It is every party member’s right to attend conference and only the federal party has the right to refuse access with justifiable reason. Furthermore the federal party’s constitution states that local parties shall elect local representatives for conference. We feel it is unacceptable to allow the Police to over-ride the wishes of local parties by having a power of veto over attendance. This new requirement may also restrict other members from attending due to their personal circumstances such as;
- anyone under 16 will not have an NI number or Driving Licence
- members whose membership is in a different name from their official ID. (Pseudonym, transgendered or just plain got married)
We ask that the registration process for conference be urgently re-evaluated by the Federal Conference Committee and that they consider with immediate effect the removal of such an illiberal requirement on its members.
First, the US no-fly list. Now, the UK no-politics list
Posted by Zoe O'Connell in Liberty on 2 June 2011
I’m finding some of the debate over the LibDem conference attendance disappointing and not what I expected of the party.
There’s a small but significant number of people who don’t see what the fuss is about. That’s fine, but how about letting those that do care campaign on it without labelling people as hysterical or overreacting? Some of us have good reasons to be wary of the police and when statements like “your passport details… will be retained and/or passed to other police forces in the future” appear in the terms and conditions, that’s bound to set alarm bells ringing.
And secondly, should we not lead from the front? It does not do much for our argument that ID Cards were unnecessary and draconian if we are unable to protect our own conference without resorting to similarly draconian measures, particularly given that bags are already searched and, in the case of Autumn conference, X-Rayed before admission to the venue.
What has not been made clear is what happens to those that are refused? Some have said that it’s unlikely anyone will be refused. If so, why bother?
But if someone is denied entry, do they have any right of appeal? Will they even get to know the evidence against them? Even US Senators had trouble appearing on their no-fly list.
“Sorry mate, you can’t come in. You’re on our no-politics list”.
(Edited to add: For those not familiar with the issue, West Midlands Police are insisting on some quite heavy-handed vetting of attendees for “security” reasons and it looks like the Federal Conference Committee have caved in.)
Theresa “Police State” May gives the police even more power to harass
Posted by Zoe O'Connell in Liberty on 9 May 2011
After a bit of a break, there’s so much stuff I could write about.
How about Tory MP Nadine Dorries? Sarah Brown commented that she’s never been seen in the same room as a certain ultra right-wing US politician. She’s not the only one to have had this thought as the Independent today branded Nadine Britain’s answer to Sarah Palin. There are certainly similarities, but even the Americans recognised a few years ago that abstenance education doesn’t work. And I’m not entirely sure why she only wants to teach girls either, as boys need to take just as much responsibility.
Or there’s the Torygraph, whose have one of their editors suggesting that only those earning enough money should be entitled to vote. So while some of us were campaigning to try to push progressive changes to democracy through, the Telegraph suggested a return to a system over one hundred and twenty years old.
But Theresa May trumps both those, as usual, with her police reform. She’s already proposed things even the Met – not known for being particularly well behaved, had suggested were akin to a police state. Now she wants to give the police more power to prosecute, without even the pretence of a check and balance of the Crown Prosecution Service.
So, in future, should a Metropolitan Police officer decide you’re not worth unlawfully killing or unlawfully kettling, they can just harass you via the criminal courts instead.
Theresa May: Metropolitan Police say she’s asking for a Police State
Posted by Zoe O'Connell in Liberty on 28 March 2011
On BBC Radio 4 this morning, Commander Bob Broadhurst, the Metropolitan Police officer in charge of policing the march at the weekend stated “Unless you want to turn this into a police state, I think the powers we’ve got are probably adequate“. (Quote at 2:03.37 on the Today Programme)
Yet according to the BBC News web site, just over an hour ago, Theresa May said “I am willing to consider powers which would ban known hooligans from attending rallies and marches, and I will look into the powers the police already have to force the removal of face coverings and balaclavas. If the police need more help to do their work I will not hesitate in granting it to them“.
So it appears the Home Secretary is considering giving powers to the police that even they think might be a bit draconian?
Trans folk and prisons, again: Parliamentary question from Caroline Lucas MP
Posted by Zoe O'Connell in Liberty on 22 March 2011
Prisons and criminal law seem an eternally popular topic whenever I blog about them, attracting more readers and more retweets than almost any other topic. It’s probably not a good indication of the way Trans people feel about society as many of us are only too aware that we’re eternally only one prejudiced police officer away from a spell in prison, even when we are the victims.
This time though, it’s nothing bad at least.
Well, nothing that’s surprisingly bad.
Green MP Caroline Lucas asked a written question in Parliament (Hansard link) to find out who the Ministry of Justice had consulted on their new guidance. The answer was interesting, a little disappointing but perhaps not surprising: Asides from QUANGOs, government departments and those involved in running/inspecting prisons, it was just Unions, (Possibly including a:gender, but I fear not) the Gender Trust and the Beaumont Society.
For those not familiar with the Beaumont Society, it’s an organisation primarily designed to support crossdressers, not people who have actually transitioned. (Although many of it’s members do go on to transition, as is inevitable with such a group!) So, relevant organisations seem to have included, err, the Gender Trust, who were apparently selected because they “asked to be part of the consultation” or “on the basis of potential interest in the Instruction”.
It seems the Ministry did not publicly advertise the consultation, failed to mention any consultation in response to a Freedom of Information request and don’t consider that Freedom of Information request or a follow-up letter (To which I have not received a response) specifically asking about a consultation to be an expression of interest? How about prior work and submissions on the topic from both GIRES and Press For Change?
Does the Ministry of Justice and Ken Clarke actually care what we think?
Didn’t think so.
P.S. Brownie points, or the political equivalent, to whoever from the Green Party is briefing Caroline Lucas on Trans issues as you’re clearly doing an effective job. We need people doing this in all political parties. (Labour Party and Conservative Party members take note!)
Power gained, power lost
Posted by Zoe O'Connell in Liberty on 21 March 2011
I find myself simultaneously amused and saddened slightly by the language in this article in the Independent. The piece reveals to us that some security guards now have the power to “request a name and address for a string of offences including criminal damage, begging and anti-social behaviour” around Victoria Station as part of a trial into increasing the power of security guards.
“Request”? The security guards have always had the power to request this, just as I have the power to request the name and address of the person sitting next to me on the Clapham Omnibus. As long as they don’t engage an anti-social behaviour, they’d equally have the power to tell me to go forth and multiply.
So it’s not that the security guards have gained any power to request anything. We, the public, have just lost the power to tell them to (politely) get lost without expecting “consequences”.
I wonder if the exact wording of that article was supplied by the department of spin press officer at the Home Office?
“Sex by deception” charges dropped
Posted by Zoe O'Connell in Equality, Liberty on 14 March 2011
In some more and definitely good news, in the Scottish “Sex-by-deception” case I’ve been following, it’s now been reported that all charges have been dropped.
For those not familiar with the story, a woman was being prosecuted for “deceiving” other women into having sex by pretending to be a man, something that could have quite worrying consequences for any Trans folk in Scotland who are not out. (And being out to just your partner might not be enough, if you were not out generally and they later claimed otherwise) It’s not been reported why the charges have been dropped, but I would hope it is down to a point of law, as in “You can’t prosecute someone for this” rather than insufficient evidence.
Unfortunately, Brooks did have to spend some time on remand in Cornton Vale Prison prior to the charges being dropped.
A closer look at the new prison guidance
Posted by Zoe O'Connell in Equality, Liberty on 8 March 2011
For those interested in reading the actual new guidance, it’s available on the Prison Service Web Site now. And for those for whom this is all TL;DR, the summary is: It’s generally a good document that falls into the two common traps with such things. Firstly, the assumption that the NHS is always right and secondly, that you can magically determine someone is trans just by looking at them without ever making a mistake.
I shall start, which is all too common, by correcting two errors that have appeared in the press. Firstly, this guidance is from the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) and only bears the Ministry of Justice logo because NOMS is part of the MoJ. As a result, it does not apply in Scotland or Northern Ireland. It has been pointed out to me by one reader that when I’d previously suggested there was draft guidance in place in the case of the trans woman in a Scottish jail, I was incorrect as the draft guidance doesn’t apply there.
Secondly, this does not apply to “cross dressers”, “transvestites” or any other term the Daily Mail might want to use to stir by imply it’s related to anything other than gender dysphoria, a recognised medical condition. (I have no idea if there’s a possible Press Complaints Commission complaint in there, but I suspect not)
Beyond that, as I suspected much of what is in the new guidance isn’t news as it doesn’t vary much from the draft guidance, which I’ve written about before. Oh, and, surprise surprise, the Daily Mail have written about before too so it’s not new to them either.
It has the same problems as before, with an effective ban on treatment while on remand waiting trial. However, other areas have improved greatly and that this area has not changed makes me suspect that there is a genuine logistical problem here rather than a lack of desire to fix things. (The average time spend on remand appears to be about 2 months) There’s also the assumption that a prisoner be held in the prison appropriate to their “legal sex”, i.e. based on presence of a GRC but this is much weakened compared to previous drafts and there is much more scope for someone to be transferred early.
Interestingly, there is already a provision for the most problematic female prisoners to be held in male prisons under certain guidelines and this is mentioned, although only on the understanding that it can only be used for transwomen in the same way as it is for ciswomen. This hopefully means that any claims that a violent prisoner might transition to cause trouble can be easily rebuffed, as they can end up back in a male prison. (Presumably alongside the most problematic female prisoners, which probably isn’t much fun)
Transmen can never be refused a request to relocate into a male prison, although it is explicitly acknowledged that many, in particular those who have not undergone full bottom surgery, may prefer to remain in a female prison due to the risks. A completely non-scientific survey of a handful of trans men who are friends of friends and have been in prison suggests that most trans men would choose to remain in female prisons. Presumably they could still be transferred against their wishes into a male prison in the same way that a cis woman can, but that isn’t addressed.
But one item jumps out as immediately problematic. There is a general ban (Section 1.10) on new or continuing private treatment that has to be for “demonstrable clinical reasons” and not based on “uninformed personal choice”. I suspect the majority of trans folk who end up in prison simply cannot afford private treatment anyway, but for those than can I suspect “the NHS won’t treat me” won’t be regarded as a good enough reason. In general, although a good policy, the document has a slightly confused mix of ideas about NHS versus private treatment, long-term transitioners and the practicalities of the laws and could probably do with a couple of cycles of revision.
In terms of treatment, the one year real-life-experience guideline prior to surgery is mentioned, but given there’s little possibility of private treatment, two years is the norm in England, with Wales being pretty much never. It goes on to say that it’s “essential” that someone planning on surgery undergo counselling for the “up to two years” wait. This fails on two counts. Firstly, you’ll be very lucky to get surgery within two years of commencement of RLE on the NHS. Secondly, the need for counselling is a medical decision. How essential it is in an individual case is a medical decision and does not belong in a Prison Service document.
For the long term transitioned, there’s an assumption that you’ll still be “high risk” and need special care. Personally, if I ended up in a prison now then I would not expect (Nor particularly want, I guess) that sort of special treatment.
And finally, there are some good points on the Gender Recognition Act, stating that staff should ask for a birth certificate and that you can’t request a GRC if someone was born in the UK. (Although one is acceptable if produced one instead of a GRC) For those that can’t produce a BC or GRC, you’re assumed to be your “birth gender”, although there’s no discussion of how to establish “birth gender” and as with police codes on searching, it could end up with some cis women, particularly lesbians, being treated initially as male if they can’t produce a BC as any physical examination to establish gender is, quite rightly, banned. Apparently, you are allowed to ring the Gender Recognition Panel and give them your “password” to allow them to reveal details to the Prison Service. I have no idea what my “password” I supplied when applying for a GRC is and I suspect I’m not alone in this and it still doesn’t help cis folk mistaken for being trans.
Ministry Of Justice doesn’t know why it’s locking people up
Posted by Zoe O'Connell in Liberty on 8 February 2011
It looks like the Ministry of Justice has a big problem on it’s hands. It doesn’t know why nearly a thousand inmates are even in prison.
Livejournal comments on my last post about sex ventured into the territory of prisoners and how reproductive rights work when there’s nobody about to reproduce with. I looked up prisoner numbers (PDF link to justice.gov.uk) to see how many of them served sentences long enough for this to be a problem and found a wonderful table detailing types of offence. The data is repeated in several places, but the best table is on page 9.
There are 935 prisoners currently in prison listed as “Offence not recorded”. This is separate from “Other offences”. 17 of those were children under 18 but over 14. This is of a total prison population of 71,103 in August 2010, of which 1,222 are children.
One individual who saw this today works for the prison service and his reaction was described as “baffled”. I’ll bet!

Zoe’s Feeds