Category Archives: politcs

The progression of the police state

“A society of free people will always have crime, violence and social disruption. It will never be completely safe. The alternative is a police state. A police state can give you safe streets, but only at the price of your human spirit. ”

These are the words of Alexander Shulgin in 1991, a name you may know as an expert in psychopharmacology. The full text of the lecture that this quote was taken from is linked below. I urge you to read it. He’s talking about the US war on drugs, but his words are strikingly relevant to the current “war on terror”. I do not post this for it’s words on drugs but rather as a mirror held up to the progression of society which is equally as applicable today as in 1991 when this was written.

Today, right now, our “leaders” are making an attack on our privacy, our right to expression, our right to communicate. David Cameron is seriously suggesting that the UK outlaw encryption and allow open monitoring of any and all of our communications, without the requirement for a court order. Does that fit the definition of a police state?

Don’t get me wrong, I understand that the security services need the ability to monitor, surveil, spy in the interest of national security, but not to offer the protection to the freedoms of the individual by requiring a court order to do so does, in my opinion cross the line into a police state and is disproportionate and dangerous, particularly if we allow politicians to decide who is surveiled and when. Politicians should only wield so much power and there should be protection against them using this power for their own gain.

There are so many parts of this text which are quote-worthy, but I will leave you with this.

“Let me ask each of you this simple question. What indicators would you accept as a definition of a police state, if it were to quietly materialize about you? I mean, a state that you could not tolerate.”

RIP Alexander Shulgin, 1925 – 2014.

http://www.psychedelic-library.org/shulgin2.htm

Banks and other organisations are irresponsible to ask for personal details over the ‘phone.

We’ve all had a call from the bank, this is nothing new. However, in today’s day-and-age, why do banks and other organisations we have accounts with think it’s okay to ask for our personal details on the ‘phone?

Several times this week I’ve had a call from my¬† bank. Upon answering, I’ve been told that they want to speak to me about “personal banking matter” and then asked for my personal details. This could be your date of birth, postcode, address, account number or one of many more pieces of personal information. I politely declined, telling the call-centre droid that it was a personal security risk to give this information out on a incoming call. They then proceeded to give me a number to call back on, which I also declined for the same reason. When I called my bank to ask about the call, they told me I did the right thing by not giving my personal information, even though it appears that it was them who called me!

We all know about about identity theft. Many of us have heard of social engineering, so why do supposedly reputable organisations insist on using such poor practice to try and contact us? Surely, we all know that someone can easily ‘phone you and pretend to be someone they’re not? Caller-Line ID is easy to fake if you know how so even the ‘phone number isn’t much use to you.

The FSA should produce guidance on this and banks and other organisations should agree never to ask for information in this way, to help stamp out unintentional information disclosure to nefarious third parties.

But why don’t these organisations seem to care? The answer is simple, all they care about is profit. They are not actually concerned about safeguarding you as long as they turn a profit and as long as it does not harm their reputation. The only way this behaviour is going to stop is if we all refuse to give out this information and make their calling not worthwhile.

So, next time someone calls you like this, I urge you to politely decline to give information. It’s safer for you and if enough of us do it, these organsations will stop trying their luck.

Black History?

My daughter’s school class talked about “black history” last week. They spoke about Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks. Now, whilst these people both have historically significant stories, is this not more American history?

I am puzzled why there appears to have been no mention of Africa and the common heritage of all African-descended peoples, why there was no mention of other signficant figures; there are plenty to choose from. Nelson Mandela, Malcolm X, Marcus Garvery, the list could go on, The aniversary of Halie Selassie’s famous “war” speech to the UN was on the fourth of this month.

Now I know, it’s only middle-school level and I can’t expect too much. However, the apartehied regime in South Africa, for example, was within my lifetime. Nelson Mandella was mentioned a lot in the news when I was young and the links between the regime in South Africa and the UK are arguably stronger than those between the UK and the USA. The same is true with Jamaica, being a former British colony. We also have a connection to India and hence to the life of Gandhi. Should black history not encompass more than just the USA; the majority of black peoples worldwide live outside of the USA.

I can’t help think that the school have paid lip-service to this part of the curriculm by providing a small snapshot of Black people in American culture. Perhaps if I lived in a more culturally-diverse area this would not be the case. I wonder if schools in more culturally diverse areas are more likely to provide a broader view of this subject. Now I know, all of this is probably not deliberate, the teachers probably have little knowledge of the subject matter themselves and even less time to research it. The lesson plan probably originated from a Google search which turned up american websites. However, should a broader view of this huge chunk of international history be more integrated into the school curriculm and by so doing understanding be cultivated, even in areas of lower cultural diversity?