EU Government Snooping

I find it amazing that governments do not get more opposition to their snooping schemes.

The EU Observer reports on EU justice ministers progressing their plans to force telecoms companies and ISPs to retain information about our phone calls and emails.

Naturally they dress it up (as so much else) as part of 'the fight against terrorism'.

It is not enough to snoop selectively: no, they 'need' to gather information on all of us. And then, as with the UK Proceeds of Crime Act, they will happily use the data for monitoring whoever they want, whenever they want, for whatever reason.

There would be no difference in principle were they to copy and store our paper correspondence, put CCTV cameras in our homes, and record all our conversations.

How do they get away with it? Does 1984 not send shivers down people's spines anymore?

For Drunk Read Sober

A Finnish pilot, Heikki Tallila, arrested at Manchester Airport in August for being over the UK's blood alcohol concentration limit for pilots, has been sentenced to 6 months in prison.

The pilot was found to have 49mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood, against a legal limit of 20mg.

Most of the news reports describe him as having been 'drunk'.

But the UK limit for car drivers is 80mg. As a car driver the pilot would not have been considered drunk, not by a long way.

Heikki Tallila may have exceeded the 20mg limit, but was that violation really so serious that it warranted a prison sentence, let alone one of 6 months?

Do readers of this blog consider themselves drunk after a glass of wine?

Would Judge John Burke, QC, who sentenced Heikki Tallila, consider himself drunk on 49mg? Or the police who arrested him? Or the prison staff who keep him?

Does our legal system promote justice or injustice?

Is it staffed by decent men, or hypocrites just 'doing their jobs'?