[The piece below is mainly about idiots conducting violent protest.]
[I've omitted that, and focussed on excessive powers against protest,
and abuse of powers over both non-violent and violent protest.]
[In particular, I'd missed the fact that, in the now grossly un-free
UK, sous-veillance is actually illegal. Sorry, David, but the Brin
hypothesis lies in tatters ...]
Battlelines drawn between police and an activist army
The Sydney Morning Herald
Date: April 01 2009
Paola Totaro in London
http://www.smh.com.au/world/battlelines-drawn-between-police-and-an-activist-army-20090331-9iae.html?skin=text-only
...
Between Friday and Monday in Plymouth police arrested five
protesters, the youngest aged 16, under anti-terrorism laws after one
was caught painting Antifa (a Europe-wide anti-fascist and
anti-racist organisation) on a wall and replica guns, homemade
fireworks and flares were found during a police search.
And, for the first time in London, protesters' greatest defence
against police heavy handedness - photographs and video - may lead to
their arrest, as the Counter Terrorism Act now permits the arrest of
anyone "eliciting, publishing or communicating information" about
members of the armed forces, intelligence services and police
officers.
In other words, someone taking a picture of a policeman during a
protest could face a fine or a jail sentence of up to 10 years - if a
link to terrorism is proved.
[But, at a quick glance, there seems to be no need to prove a link to
terrorism. This offence is created in the Terrorism Act, but seems
not to be limited in that way!]
...
[It appears that s.76 of the Counter-Terrorism [Amendment?] Act of
2008 inserted s.58A into the Terrorism Act 2000:
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=3535083&ActiveTextDocId=3535192
[A defence of "[I] had a reasonable excuse for [my] action" sounds
very much like prosecuting your innocence. The very use of the word
"excuse" reeks of State power. It's antithetical to democracy to
have to 'excuse' yourself for exercising your rights and protecting
yourself against abuse of power by State organs.
[Personally, I have no problem with law enforcement agencies having
considerable powers that are triggered by violent actions, and I
emphatically do not support the professional trouble-makers who
create havoc at events like this one.
[The issue is whether the powers that LEAs have are subject to
appropriate controls - including such aspects as requirements that
LEA staff wear a visible identifier (*not* necessarily the name they
use at home), sanctions against removal of identifiers, and the
freedom to create audio, still-image and video recordings of protest
events.]
--
Roger Clarke http://www.rogerclarke.com/
Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd 78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA
Tel: +61 2 6288 1472, and 6288 6916
mailto:[log in to unmask] http://www.xamax.com.au/
Visiting Professor in Info Science & Eng Australian National University
Visiting Professor in the eCommerce Program University of Hong Kong
Visiting Professor in the Cyberspace Law & Policy Centre Uni of NSW
****************************************************
This is a message from the SURVEILLANCE listserv
for research and teaching in surveillance studies.
To unsubscribe, please send the following message to
<[log in to unmask]>:
UNSUBSCRIBE SURVEILLANCE
For further help, please visit:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help
****************************************************
|