indigetesdii.org :: blog

The government is always right. They are incapable of making mistakes. If something is wrong, it is you that is wrong. The government is always right because they work for you and love you; and you love them. If you don’t, they can cure you.

However, in a massive reversal of always being right, a UK government clerk ruined Andre Powers’s business (mirror).

Andre Powers spent so much on his starting business that he fell three months behind on his mortgage payments. His lender took him to court, but Mr Powers settled the debt before the case came before a judge.

However, a smart clerk, who obviously double-checks his sources, mistakingly entered a County Court Judgement (CCJ) for the full amount of Mr Powers’s mortgage. Mr Powers didn’t find out until a potential investor performed a credit check on him through Experian. The credit check failed because, according to the government database from which Experian buys its information, Mr Powers was over £240,000 in debt.

No investors means no business. As the government database error was responsible for ruining his business Mr Powers tried to claim for compensation, but a judge dismissed his claim citing an apparently very unrelated precedent of a prisoner being held longer than the time he was convicted for and not being able to sue over it (Quinland v. Governor of Swaleside Prison). Full of compassion, the judge did decide that the CCJ should be removed.

Thanks to one clerk and one judge, a dangerous precedent has been set. When the government ruins your life because of a simple database error, there is no way you will be able to claim back the money or time you lost because of it. All it takes is one government clerk’s idiocy, bad typing skills, or pressure to reach his data entry targets to ruin your life.

With a bit of luck, they’ll remove or change the erroneous information, but that’s it – your losses are completely yours to carry.

In another great database scheme, the same UK government has had the genious idea of vetting everyone who frequently visits schools, such as children’s books authors (mirror).
For the privilege of being part of this database, the “candidate” gets to pay £64. What could possibly go wrong?

Well, you either pass or fail the vetting: you do not have access to the information that is kept on you, so you cannot defend yourself. This information consists of your criminal history and, surprisingly, allegations and suspicions reported by the public. You better not have any enemies.

There will be no official charge or trial, just a pass or fail. If you fail, because at some point your ex-wife/ex-husband accused you of abusing your children to spite you (it’s not like that never happens) (mirror), you’re marked for the rest of your life: you failed a vetting that was put in place to protect our children from dangerous sexual predators. As far as public opinion is concerned, you are nothing but a child molester.

In their quest to set up another database, the government has conveniently forgotten that, in any school, no visitor is ever left alone with a child: a teacher is always present, as they carry the ultimate responsibility for the well-being of their little students.

Luckily, the government has promised to rethink the details (mirror), but you probably shouldn’t get your hopes up.
For all the bullshit the UK government spouts about “human rights”, this legislation is very much against the European Convention of Human Rights.

In an even further move towards complete database control, the UK government is still pushing to implement its national ID database, including biometrics.
Ordinarily, different government agencies would hold different information on citizens – with a national ID database, all information will be centralised. Great idea; now only one database needs to be cracked to commit very efficient fraud through impersonation (sorry, identity theft).
But it’s all alright, because they’re going to add fancy biometrics to the database to make it extra safe! If only biometrics could be infallible, which they are not.

Quoting or referring to George Orwell’s 1984 is going to become a lot less cliché when our society becomes exactly like the one Winston Smith hated so much. But, as Smith, I’m sure that we will be cured to love it.

In June 2008, Californian Kevin Cogill uploaded tracks from the then-upcoming Guns’n'Roses album “Chinese Democracy” onto the Antiquiet website.
When asked by the Guns’n'Roses singer’s legal team, he removed the offending files. So why exactly did he end up convicted in court (mirror) because of it?

Initially, he was charged with a felony, with the prosecution asking for six months imprisonment. Traditionally, the word felony is reserved for such crimes as homicide, rape, and kidnapping – maybe, in the near future, we can officially add copyright infringement to that list?

The copyright terrorist’s charges were eventually deduced to a misdemeanor, but not all that ends with not going to prison ends well.
Kevin Cogill was sentenced to one year of probation, two months of home confinement and having his computer activity monitored by the government (well, they’ll specifically monitor his computer activity). Adding to that, he’ll also have to record a so-called “public service announcement” (i.e. an anti-”piracy” advertisement) for the RIAA.

He was tried and convicted as if he were a robber or burglar – all for the civil crime of copyright infringement. As cliché as it may sound, I think that a certain character in one of George Orwell’s books would be very, very proud.

Why did the prosecution ask for a prison sentence? Why would Cogill need to be removed from society? I may not know him personally, but I’m fairly sure he won’t be stabbing the clerk at his local 7-11 anytime soon.

One could say the punishment did not exactly fit the crime in Cogill’s case. But, as always, this case isn’t the only one.

In June this year, Jammie Thomas-Rasset was ordered to pay a US$1,920,000 fine (mirror) for sharing 24 (yes, twenty-four) songs via the peer-to-peer program Kazaa.

In another case, Joel Tenenbaum was ordered to pay damages of US$675,000 (mirror) to four record labels, all subsidiaries of Warner Music, Sony and Universal Music.

Again, a downright evil thief was found and tried (fairly, no doubt). US$675,000 may seem a little steep, but it sure beats the maximum $4,500,000 (yes, that is four and a half million US dollars) that could have been awarded to the so-called “victims”… for sharing thirty songs.

Luckily, there has been and is nothing but good news on the horizon for the big record labels and other media holdings alike. It seems that their lobbyists do excellent work: late July, the European Commission of Justice ruled that snippets of only eleven words can constitute copyright infringement (mirror).

For a long time now, copyright laws and the prosecution of those who go against them have surpassed and ignored common sense; but now it’s coming close to punching every tax-paying citizen in the face. Twice.
By Jove, eleven words: it’s (nearly) as bad as pulling a gun on someone’s grandmother to steal her pension cheque.

At this rate, next year we’ll be fined (or shot on sight?) for humming a tune on our way to work.

And speaking of grandmothers, it’s exactly them who the Queensland, New Zealand, police are out to protect: by wardriving for unprotected wireless networks (mirror).

Of course, they’re doing this to combat fraud and identity theft (shouldn’t that be fraud through impersonation?), by apparently limiting the criminals’ area of operations.

Right. Because any coffee shop, any public library or any airport hasn’t got wireless networks available to anyone. No, criminals are going to use their own neighbours’ networks; or sit – inconspicuously and unnoticed, I’m sure – in a car on a residential street; rather than use any of these open networks in public spaces where they won’t get caught.

Maybe, just maybe, the Queensland police are trying to limit the “area of operations” for the kid next door who thinks he’s cleverly evading capture by downloading or sharing songs over his neighbour’s network? But of course, that’s just speculation on my part.

Either way, I’m sure it won’t be a waste of the public services’ time. As I’m sure none of the other cases mentioned have been a waste of the justice system’s time. It’s not like they’ve got murderers and rapists to convict in this little perfect world.

Pharmaceutical companies are racing to be the first to finish a swine flu vaccine. Any sane person who’s ever survived a case of regular influenza would do good to refuse such a rushed vaccine; as the vaccine itself seems likely to make you more sick than the illness it’s supposed to protect you against.

However, the WHO’s advisory board (the same WHO who shifted its focus from battling Africa’s hunger to battling Europe’s smoking), which includes executives from the big pharmaceutical companies, recommends mandatory vaccination (mirror).
Taking the intelligence displayed by our governments in the past few years into account, there should be no doubt they will take these pharmaceutical companies’ advice as the Unchallengeable Truth™ and act accordingly.

The following 1979 news report sounds scarily familiar today. One major thing has changed, though: in 1979 people could sue when the 1976 vaccine ruined their lives. For the vaccine being created now, the US government has made it clear that the pharmaceutical companies will be immune from prosecution (mirror) (within the US – for now).

If the video above goes down, the .flv file can be found here.

Last Friday, Amazon deleted several books by George Orwell from their users’ Kindles (mirror) because of possible copyright issues. Kindle users didn’t receive any notice or warning – their only information came from an e-mail confirming a refund for the books.

It is downright invasive that Amazon grants itself access without users’ knowledge or consent. They have the supposed right to delete the books because they’re not the buyer’s property: Amazon licenses these digital editions instead of actually selling them. Of course, until now they’ve never made that explicitly clear; except in the mythical Terms of Use/License Agreement which no one reads because, simply put, they’re unreadable unless you’re a lawyer (but I do believe that’s the point).

The idea that a manufacturer still has rights over a device after it has been purchased (cfr. Apple) is ludicrous. Once the sale is made, it becomes private property. If you smash your Kindle against a wall, Amazon aren’t going to be angry, because it’s not their property anymore.
These digital books should be sold, not licensed. Licensing, in general, is more profitable – and everyone likes money – but users’ rights and freedom cannot be thrown out of the window just to pay for an executive’s second swimming pool.

Amazon has said that in a future situation like this, they won’t automatically remove books from users’ devices.
Great idea. How about the next time they mess up, they contact the company claiming to own the copyright and discuss costs/compensation with them, whilst the users continue enjoying their disputed digital editions. The users shouldn’t suffer to rectify Amazon’s mistake.
As sorry as Amazon claimed to be after the New York Times article, they’ve already taken the same action for disputed Harry Potter and Ayn Rand books earlier this year. I don’t have high hopes for a change in tactics.

What if the US retroactively extends the period of copyright (again)? A US-based user’s entire Kindle content could be emptied overnight. What if the EU does the same? I’ll stick with old-fashioned books for now – I’m sure Amazon’s Kindle won’t survive 451°F either, anyway.

Ironically enough, one of the deleted books was 1984; and Amazon’s actions are a perfect example of how our society turns more Orwellian every day. And if we don’t stand up to it, Richard Stallman’s fictional story The Right To Read may very well become our future reality.

[edited to add - 24 July 2009:]
Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos has apologised for Amazon’s actions. The ability to do this again, however, is still there. The license agreement hasn’t changed.
Removing digital editions from users’ Kindles is still a lot easier than checking the copyright of these books before they are sold; or than making a deal with the real rights holder…

After MySpace, let’s see how Facebook holds up in the eternal all your data are belong to us competition. My pronostic would be “not so good”.

On a sidenote…

With regards to Facebook privacy, Bruce Schneier has some interesting links on his blog about Facebook’s privacy settings:

Ten privacy settings every Facebook user should know

Protecting your privacy on Facebook

The information in the links overlaps a bit, but it seems helpful. However, as I don’t use Facebook, I can’t vouch for their effects. I am sure they won’t save you from any data retention, though.
Scheiner’s original blog entry was about a study (.pdf) stating that the more people are ‘reassured’ about the safe-guarding of their privacy, the more they care about it – and thus, the less they are willing to reveal personal information. Henceforth, “social networking” websites prefer to remind you about the supposed benefits of their services, rather than the fact they will (not?) protect your privacy.

Meanwhile, the pictures deleted from MySpace on 4 July are (at the time of writing) still on their servers.

The last message to ever pass through my personal MySpace profile.

This page shan’t be used anymore. Ever since I created it – through the coercion of everyone else is using it and has stopped using other means of online communication rather than actually wanting to – I’ve felt dirty about it. Now I’ve come to a point where I’m not just tired of feeling like a private corporation’s commodity, but I want to act upon it. Near-eternal (and soon eternal) data retention and the selling-off of marketing databases (to provide us with better services, of course) is not exactly my proverbial cup of tea.

Not using a personal MySpace page anymore is barely an example of that, but at least I’ll feel slightly better about myself.

“Web 2.0″ (MySpace, Facebook et al) has caused the death of user-run and user-controlled online communities, and as I’ve witnessed over the last few years has caused the internet to cease what it used to be. When I first connected to the worldwide tubes in 1998, it was a great network of knowledge and freedom. Over eleven years, it has turned into nothing less than subscription cable TV: you think that what you’re getting is what you want, rather than fat executives deciding what you want – and you gladly buying into it. Hey, it’s the newest thing, so it must be good, right?

Hypocritical as I am, the Indigetes Dii MySpace page will continue to exist; purely because the music is too shitty to have any listeners were it not for the drunk people clicking through from other profiles.

As for the data retention, check this page with links to four pictures I deleted to see how long they stay on MySpace’s servers. Because, like it or not, they own them. But, like everyone else, you didn’t read the Terms Of Use, did you? Of course not. No one outside of MySpace’s (or Facebook’s, Bebo’s, …) legal department ever has, as they’re simply incomprehensible unless you’re a seasoned lawyer.

So bye-bye, MySpace friends – if any of you long-lost e-pals of yore ever return here, you can contact me via indigetesdii.org. Or add the Indigetes Dii profile and be a “friend” (how that word has lost its meaning over the past years…) of the crappiest experimental noise ever made!

I hope you realise that your freedom, online and otherwise, is being taken away from you day by day; and that you will act upon it by closing your rectum to the corporations trying to stick their penises in it. Toodle-pip!